PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Military Moves To Accept Gay Recruits



Odysseus
10-20-2010, 12:34 PM
New York Times
October 20, 2010

By John Schwartz

The United States military, for the first time, is allowing its recruiters to accept openly gay and lesbian applicants.

The historic move follows a series of decisions by a federal judge in California, Virginia A. Phillips, who ruled last month that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of service members. On Oct. 12, she ordered the military to stop enforcing the law.

President Obama has said that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “will end on my watch.” But the Department of Justice, following its tradition of defending laws passed by Congress, has fought efforts by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization, to overturn the policy.

Judge Phillips on Tuesday denied requests by the government to maintain the status quo during the appeals process.

The Pentagon has stated its intent to file an appeal in case of such a ruling. But meanwhile, it has started complying with Judge Phillips’s instructions while the dispute over her orders plays out.

New instructions were e-mailed to recruiters on Friday for handling situations in which applicants volunteer their sexual orientation. Recruiters do not ask about sexual orientation and have not since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law went into effect in the 1990s.

Recruiters were also told that they must inform the applicants that the moratorium on “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be reversed.

R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, applauded the Pentagon decision as “a huge deal.”

Mr. Cooper noted, however, that under the new rules, a service member who announces his or her sexual orientation “does run the risk of discharge if the ruling is overturned — if there is a successful appeal by the Department of Justice.”

“They do need to be aware of that possibility,” he said.

Mr. Cooper, a member of the Army Reserve, said that he was taking part in training last week at Fort Huachuca in Arizona when the injunction was issued, and that he was surprised by the lack of visible opposition or outcry.

He likened it to a “giant shoulder shrug of ‘so what?’ ”

Most of the people he was with, he added, were younger members of the service, and “a few people actually thought repeal had already occurred.”

Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, would not address a question about whether a recruit who volunteered that he was gay during the current suspension of the law might face expulsion from the military if the decision were appealed.

She called that situation hypothetical and said only that recruiters had been reminded that “they need to set expectations by informing the applicant that a reversal for the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law may occur.”

An opponent of service by openly gay men and lesbians dismissed the Pentagon shift as “a political ploy.”

Elaine Donnelly, the founder of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative organization that opposes gay service in the military, said Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to draft rules for the military.

The Department of Justice, she added, acted properly by filing its request for a stay.

“There was no need to introduce this additional element of disconnect with the law and precedent and policy,” Ms. Donnelly said. “The military doesn’t need this — but this is what the Department of Defense did, and frankly, I find it inexplicable.”

Military recruiters around the country were adjusting to the change in policy on Tuesday.

Dan Choi, who was discharged from the Army under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tried to re-enlist at the Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square. Photographers and reporters crowded around the door, and they, in turn, were ringed by tourists and bystanders.

Mr. Choi emerged from the recruiting station and said, “They’re processing me.”

He added that the recruiters had not been rattled by his request, and he poked fun at the oft-repeated argument that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would affect unit cohesion in the military. “They didn’t disintegrate in there,” he said. “Their unit cohesion is doing just fine.”

Another former service member was not as successful in his attempt. Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, who is the president of the Log Cabin Republicans’ San Diego chapter, showed up at a recruiting station in El Cajon, Calif., on Tuesday afternoon to see if he could rejoin the Marines after being honorably discharged two years ago.

The visit was brief. The Marines, the recruiter told him, had very few slots for prior-service Marines to return to duty, and the current quota was filled.

“I have to wait now until December or January” to find out if more spaces open up, he said.

“I have no idea what to do now other than wait,” said Mr. Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23. He then went back to San Diego Mesa College, where he is a sophomore, to take a Japanese exam.

Omar Lopez, who served four and a half years in the Navy and was honorably discharged in 2006 under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tried to re-enlist the day after Judge Phillips issued her injunction. He was rejected by recruiters who said they had received no instructions about the injunction, or about accepting gay recruits.

Dan Woods, the lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans, sent a letter to the Department of Justice warning that rejecting Mr. Lopez and other openly gay recruits meant that “the Defense Department would appear to be in violation of the court’s injunction and subject to citation for contempt” of court.

Mr. Lopez, a college student in Austin, Tex., said he is not a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and in fact is “mostly Democrat.”

He said he was gratified to hear that his experience might have nudged policies forward. “I’m really glad that it had that impact,” he added, and vowed to try again. He said he was not concerned that returning to the military at this point might put him under special scrutiny.

“I think I wouldn’t go back as a gay man,” he explained. “I would go back as a soldier.”

Elisabeth Bumiller and Andrew Keh contributed reporting.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reaction will come in a couple of weeks, on November 2nd.

djones520
10-20-2010, 12:38 PM
This is a shitty situation...

I would like to see this happen. But not like this, this was the wrong way to do it.

The military is not ready for this, and nothing but bad is going to come from it.

noonwitch
10-20-2010, 01:08 PM
This is a shitty situation...

I would like to see this happen. But not like this, this was the wrong way to do it.

The military is not ready for this, and nothing but bad is going to come from it.



If people are taking advantage of the temporary lifting of DADT and enlisting openly as gays, and then they receive later consequences due to an overturning of that ruling, there will be lawsuits. The military doesn't need that right now (or ever).

Dan D. Doty
10-20-2010, 02:50 PM
I see this as the adminstration's first step in destroying the US military. They want to create chaos and strife, then demoralize them. After that they'll start slashing their budget to the bone.

Moonbats have always held the military and its members in contempt, now will they get the chance to cripple, if not kill it. The sad thing they will need the military some time in the future, and it will not be in any shape for a fight when that happens.

Wei Wu Wei
10-20-2010, 03:27 PM
I see this as the adminstration's first step in destroying the US military. They want to create chaos and strife, then demoralize them.

Soldiers of the United States of America. The most Elite Fighting Force in the history of the world. The best-armed, best-trained, best-skilled military force man has ever seen. They helped to end the Nazi regime. They put the greatest war in the history of the world to an abrupt end. They managed to hold off and collapse the great superpowers that threatened them.

However, in the year 2010, that all changed. A soldier manning a mortar in afghanistan is suspected of liking dudes. The troops scatter in disarray, they are picked off by afghan insurgent snipers. The officers suddenly lose their authority, as everywhere they look they are seeing penis games taking place. Chaos spreads throughout the ranks. By January 2011, the United States Military is no more.

In 2012, the Chinese invade, and all we can do to stop them is deploy platoon after platoon to redecorate their living rooms and design stylish uniforms.


We. Are. Doomed.

djones520
10-20-2010, 03:33 PM
I've gotta admit, Wei made a funny post.

Dan, it's hardly going to be that bad.

This will have a major demoralizing effect. MEO offices, and the supervisory chain, is going to get the shit worked out of it dealing with all types of people who won't belong here, but are here because they want to make a statement. As an NCO, I see headaches down the road.

Strife will be caused by those who will not accept gays serving beside them, and by gays demanding people accept them. But it is not in anyway shape or form the end of the military. We will go on. We will adapt, we will perservere, and we will continue to womp face wherever we are called to womp face.

Arroyo_Doble
10-20-2010, 03:35 PM
I've gotta admit, Wei made a funny post.

Dan, it's hardly going to be that bad.

This will have a major demoralizing effect. MEO offices, and the supervisory chain, is going to get the shit worked out of it dealing with all types of people who won't belong here, but are here because they want to make a statement. As an NCO, I see headaches down the road.

Strife will be caused by those who will not accept gays serving beside them, and by gays demanding people accept them. But it is not in anyway shape or form the end of the military. We will go on. We will adapt, we will perservere, and we will continue to womp face wherever we are called to womp face.

I would assume that happens now and they are dealt with pretty quickly. Doesn't early training weed out the chaff (to mix metaphors)?

djones520
10-20-2010, 03:37 PM
I would assume that happens now and they are dealt with pretty quickly. Doesn't early training weed out the chaff (to mix metaphors)?

ROFL.

Fuck no.

It weeds a good bit out, but not nearly enough. There are plenty of instances of people who make it to E6 before they get "weeded out".

I spent 6 weeks at Basic Training, and 6 months at Tech School. I saw 4 people get seperated. In the next two years in the "real Air Force" I saw at least 10 from my unit alone. Care to wonder what the jobs where like for the supervisors of those people?

Wei Wu Wei
10-20-2010, 03:41 PM
I can see a surge of gay people enlisting now that they are able to, a spike that will likely level out once it's not a big dela anymore.

My brother is a military police officer and I cannot imagine him allowing anyone to fall apart into mental distress and strife just because there's a gay guy watching their ass (metaphorically).

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 03:42 PM
I see this as the adminstration's first step in destroying the US military. They want to create chaos and strife, then demoralize them. After that they'll start slashing their budget to the bone.

Moonbats have always held the military and its members in contempt, now will they get the chance to cripple, if not kill it. The sad thing they will need the military some time in the future, and it will not be in any shape for a fight when that happens.
It's not that they want to sow chaos. Obama needs a military, he just doesn't want the one that we have. The armed forces are the only part of the federal government that isn't reliably liberal, and previous attempts to crack the culture have failed. By forcing this change, he will be able to cull leaders and Soldiers who don't hold the "correct" view on gays in the force, and who will therefore also be more likely to hold "incorrect" views on other issues. Meanwhile, the problems that this will raise will be dealt with as if everything is the fault of the hidebound, reactionary military, rather than by the presence of Soldiers whose lifestyle is disruptive to good order and discipline. Holders of traditional views will be profiled as bigots and thrown out, and in the end, the remaining troops will either be very clever scammers who can hold their tongues, or people who buy into the multicultural nonsense. Neither will serve nation well.


Soldiers of the United States of America. The most Elite Fighting Force in the history of the world. The best-armed, best-trained, best-skilled military force man has ever seen. They helped to end the Nazi regime. They put the greatest war in the history of the world to an abrupt end. They managed to hold off and collapse the great superpowers that threatened them.

However, in the year 2010, that all changed. A soldier manning a mortar in afghanistan is suspected of liking dudes. The troops scatter in disarray, they are picked off by afghan insurgent snipers. The officers suddenly lose their authority, as everywhere they look they are seeing penis games taking place. Chaos spreads throughout the ranks. By January 2011, the United States Military is no more.

In 2012, the Chinese invade, and all we can do to stop them is deploy platoon after platoon to redecorate their living rooms and design stylish uniforms.

We. Are. Doomed.

Spare me your feigned concern. You have made your contempt for the US military quite clear on several occasions, so you'll pardon me if I don't accept that your position on this is motivated by anything other than the desire to impose failure on us. You're not interested in readiness, combat effectiveness or morale issues (except to undermine them), so any argument against your cause du jour will fall on deaf ears.

Meanwhile, in answer to your demand that I critique Marxist theory, rather than its horrific effects in the real world, I started a new thread and am still awaiting your response. As I said before, you asked for it. Do you plan to read it?

Wei Wu Wei
10-20-2010, 03:46 PM
Spare me your feigned concern. You have made your contempt for the US military quite clear on several occasions, so you'll pardon me if I don't accept that your position on this is motivated by anything other than the desire to impose failure on us. You're not interested in readiness, combat effectiveness or morale issues (except to undermine them), so any argument against your cause du jour will fall on deaf ears.

you have no idea what you're talking about.


Meanwhile, in answer to your demand that I critique Marxist theory, rather than its horrific effects in the real world, I started a new thread and am still awaiting your response. As I said before, you asked for it. Do you plan to read it?

check your thread fool

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 04:00 PM
you have no idea what you're talking about.
The hell I don't. People who care about what we do don't casually refer to us as "killers." You have no credibility with anyone on this issue.


check your thread fool
Took you long enough, fool.

Arroyo_Doble
10-20-2010, 04:02 PM
ROFL.

Fuck no.

It weeds a good bit out, but not nearly enough. There are plenty of instances of people who make it to E6 before they get "weeded out".

I spent 6 weeks at Basic Training, and 6 months at Tech School. I saw 4 people get seperated. In the next two years in the "real Air Force" I saw at least 10 from my unit alone. Care to wonder what the jobs where like for the supervisors of those people?

Ah. I see the problem :cool:

Big Guy
10-20-2010, 04:52 PM
Article 125 of the UCMJ covers this completely. They can be GAY, but if they are caught violating article 125 they can be Court martial.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

djones520
10-20-2010, 04:58 PM
Article 125 of the UCMJ covers this completely. They can be GAY, but if they are caught violating article 125 they can be Court martial.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

You do realize anyone in the military getting a blow job can be charged with that. At the same time another article technically makes it a punishable offense to have sex outside of marriage, even if single.

Lager
10-20-2010, 05:08 PM
I don't think you'll see much attempt at prosecuting gays for that article. Unless they want to charge all the heteros who are guilty of the same.

Big Guy
10-20-2010, 05:19 PM
You do realize anyone in the military getting a blow job can be charged with that. At the same time another article technically makes it a punishable offense to have sex outside of marriage, even if single.

Yea I realize that. This (Article 125) is rarely used but I have a feeling it's going to be used more often. It is usually used on Soldiers who Rape, Molest, or get caught screwing their Commanders Wife/Husband. :D

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 05:59 PM
I can see a surge of gay people enlisting now that they are able to, a spike that will likely level out once it's not a big dela anymore.

My brother is a military police officer and I cannot imagine him allowing anyone to fall apart into mental distress and strife just because there's a gay guy watching their ass (metaphorically).

I can't. If gays really cared about the military, they'd be counterprotesting at the Westboro Baptist Church events at military funerals. Hasn't happened, even though Westboro is attacking the military because they loathe gays and think that the US is already too gay-friendly (I can only imagine what this will do to spur their activities). There is a lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court on this very issue right now. Has any gay group filed an amicus brief supporting the right of military families to not have their grief disrupted by idiots? No? Why not? You'd think that at least one gay group would demonstrate a commitment to the families of the departed and the people that they want to serve with, but for some reason, that hasn't happened. Care to explain why that is?

And, with all due respect to your brother, I can well imagine him having to put up with all sorts of disciplinary issues that will arise from this ruling. Thanks to the way that the military brought women in, we now have mandatory classes on the prevention of sexual harassment and sexual assault, unit victim advocates and a host of other programs which deal with the issues, all at the expense of time and resources that could otherwise be spent on the primary missions of our units. How much more stress will gays put on the military? How many more accomodations will have to be made in order to prevent conflict among young, highly stressed, heavily armed combat troops who are now going to feel uncomfortable in common areas such as latrines and showers?

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're not a leftist ideologue who loathes the armed forces and gets off on undermining our missions and slandering our commanders. Why don't you tell me exactly what benefits this change in policy will bring to the armed forces? How will this enhance readiness, training, unit cohesion and all of the other aspects of a combat organization? What combat multipliers will gays and lesbians bring to the force? You can answer that, can't you? You have spent time studying the problem from that perspective, haven't you?

Rockntractor
10-20-2010, 09:10 PM
You can join now Wei Wei, they can use you for a subhuman shield.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/gay_army.jpg?t=1287623376

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 09:41 PM
You can join now Wei Wei, they can use you for a subhuman shield.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/gay_army.jpg?t=1287623376

Ah yes, the Pink Panzers...

Zathras
10-21-2010, 12:31 AM
you have no idea what you're talking about.

Talking to yourself in the mirror again Wee Wee? You must be because you show that in every post you make.

m00
10-21-2010, 01:38 AM
So here's what I dont get. The claim is that it impacts unit cohesion and trust in front line combat. Okay, fine. So why not restrict openly gay persons to duties like DOD linguist and staff aid #37 to General Whomever at Centcom? There's plenty of roles in the arm forces where you don't get into the issue of "Can I trust this dude in a foxhole with me"

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 02:01 AM
So here's what I dont get. The claim is that it impacts unit cohesion and trust in front line combat. Okay, fine. So why not restrict openly gay persons to duties like DOD linguist and staff aid #37 to General Whomever at Centcom? There's plenty of roles in the arm forces where you don't get into the issue of "Can I trust this dude in a foxhole with me"

It's not about any logical reasons it's just all in their heads they believe if they accept gays in any area then they must accept gays everywhere and gasp they might even be gay themselves OH GOD WHERE DOES IT END?!

:rolleyes:

No serious person who isn't a stupid teenage boy cares about what someone else gets off to, just do your damn job and act like the professionals you are.

djones520
10-21-2010, 06:07 AM
So here's what I dont get. The claim is that it impacts unit cohesion and trust in front line combat. Okay, fine. So why not restrict openly gay persons to duties like DOD linguist and staff aid #37 to General Whomever at Centcom? There's plenty of roles in the arm forces where you don't get into the issue of "Can I trust this dude in a foxhole with me"

It's not just about being in combat, and at any rate, in todays environment we are ALL combat troops. Even me in the Air Force. In the AF we undergo month long combat skill training courses before we deploy now, because the war environment we are in right now puts us on the front line as well.

But it goes beyond combat. How are we supposed to handle living arrangements now? Even though the AF has some of the highest standards of living of the 4 branches, even we still share bathrooms with other people in our dorms.

Would you tell a woman that they have to deal with sharing a bathroom with a man she's never met before? That they'll have access to her room?

So no, now the military is going to have to spend money on lodging facilities strictly for homosexuals. And how about Basic Training? I slept in a single bay with 60 other men. Showered with them. But it's the same exact situation. Homosexuals are going to need to be afforded seperate quarters, there by disrupting a major part of the training of unit cohesion.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The military has had no time to prepare to deal with these issues. Some gunslinging judge decided to force his opinion onto the military, and it WILL have a negative impact on our readiness. Because we were not given the oppurtunity to prepare for it properly.

So while everyone is cheering, we in uniform are going to end up suffering. It's not enough that I'm not in a deployed environment right now. I'm now going to have to go through "sensitivity" training sessions for this. As an NCO, I'm going to have to mentor my troops on how they need to handle this. As an NCO, I may end up having to deal with extra disciplinary issues with my troops because of this.

In a military that is already straining because Congress is giving us more work to do with less bodies, this just adds even more onto our plates. Something that we did not need at this time, and should have waiting for a period of relative peace and stability with plenty of prior planning to prepare for it.

djones520
10-21-2010, 08:20 AM
Aaaand... a Federal Appeals court has put a hold on the whole thing. DADT is still in effect.

Sonnabend
10-21-2010, 09:16 AM
you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right.

A COMMISSIONED OFFICER in the US military has no idea what he is discussing. Say hi to whatever remaining brain cells you have.,..they must be getting very very lonely by now

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 11:20 AM
It's not about any logical reasons it's just all in their heads they believe if they accept gays in any area then they must accept gays everywhere and gasp they might even be gay themselves OH GOD WHERE DOES IT END?!

:rolleyes:

No serious person who isn't a stupid teenage boy cares about what someone else gets off to, just do your damn job and act like the professionals you are.
Since anyone who opposes the repeal of DADT must be a closet case, does that mean that anyone who advocates for it is also gay? Is your support for the gay activist agenda proof of your sexual tastes? Or is it only those you disagree with who cannot hold an opinion that isn't based on some irrational bigotry?

I'm going to try to explain this to you, not that it will do any good, since once you are confronted with facts, you invariably abandon the thread, but I have to try.

The introduction of women into the armed forces in huge numbers, without prior thought, has created disciplinary and morale problems that the advocates refused to acknowledge, and therefore failed to mitigate. We can look at those problems and see where we will run into similar issues with gays.

First, there were differences in physical standards. Men and women have different performance requirements on the Army Physical Fitness Test, for example, with women doing fewer reps and getting more time on the run. A survey done a few years ago cited that Soldiers who merely pointed this out were accused of sexual harassment, even though it is an obvious fact, enshrined in the regulations. This won't be a problem with gays, but any negative attitudes based on any perception of preferential treatment will automatically become fodder for Equal Opportunity complaints.

Second, even innocuous relationships between men and women become grist for the gossip mill. I once had a conversation with a female mechanic which was completely innocent (I wanted to know when my track would be FMC) and later had to quash a rumor that I was interested in her because afterwards, she told another Soldier that she thought that I was "cute." I have learned to be very circumspect in dealing with female Soldiers in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Throw in gay and straight Soldiers sleeping in the same barracks, using the same showers and otherwise being compelled to live and work in close quarters, and you have increased the risk of gossip and inuendo undermining command relationships by an order of magnitude.

Third, if the appearance of a relationship is destructive, imagine what actual relationships will do. Male and female Soldiers bunk in separate quarters and still manage to hook up, with highly negative consequences for everyone. Barracks affairs create jealosy, favoritism and conflict. Careers end over ilicit relationships. I personally know a CSM who returned from a tour in Iraq as a Specialist. You read that right. He was reduced from E9 to E4 because of an affair with a subordinate and the ensuing issues that came out of it (including a fight with another Soldier over her). And these are Soldiers in separate living areas. Imagine what will happen when two same-sex Soldiers set up housekeeping. For that matter, imagine what happens in CONUS, which leads to...

On post housing, marriage retreats, you name it. Right now, the army has family housing and single housing on post. We don't have hooches for unmarried couples who cohabitate, but since gay marriage is illegal, we will have to change our rules, which will mean either allowing gay couples to cohabitate on post, or recognizing gay marriages.

And, of course, that's really what this is about, isn't it? You don't care if gays serve in the armed forces, and the vast majority of gays certainly don't plan to. What you care about is finding a back door (no pun intended) way to impose gay marriage on the US. This is a Trojan Horse for a completely unrelated issue, just like trying to tack repeal of DADT and an amnesty for illegals on the Defense appropriation in the senate.

And, I will ask again: What is the benefit to the military of repealing DADT? I've told you the consequences, which you refuse to acknowledge, but you've never even tried to present the case for it from a military standpoint. Why not? Don't you think that having openly gay Soldiers in the ranks will improve anything in the military? Or do you just not care?


Right.

A COMMISSIONED OFFICER in the US military has no idea what he is discussing. Say hi to whatever remaining brain cells you have.,..they must be getting very very lonely by now

Wei treats CU the way a cat treats a catbox, as someplace to dump things and then, when they start to stink, to bury them and move on to another thread. He can't defend his ideas because beyond the most superficial talking points, he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about, especially when it comes to defense policy. This is just fun and games for him, and it makes him feel like he's "fighting the power" when, in reality, he's just providing me with an insight into the arguments that liberals will make, and the opportunity to rebut them.

wilbur
10-21-2010, 11:51 AM
Homosexuals serve openly in the military in just about every other western nation, including Israel of all places.... which has one of the most powerful and elite military forces in the world next to our own.

But it couldn't possibly work here, I'm sure.

djones520
10-21-2010, 11:57 AM
Homosexuals serve openly in the military in just about every other western nation, including Israel of all places.... who has one of the most powerful and elite armies in the world next to our own.

But it couldn't possibly work here, I'm sure.

I'm no expert on the IDF, but I doubt they have to worry about things like MEO like we have to in our military. The liberal ideology gripping this nation has made our military so afraid to look at it's own shadow that it just creates even more problems for allowing gays to openly serve.

You want to guess how many times I've had to sit in sexual assualt awareness classes that flat out tell me I'm a rapist because I'm a man?

Or how many man hours I've wasted on being trained on how to make sure I don't offend ANYONE?

Care to guess how this incorporation is going to affect things like that?

Nope, I bet you don't. Because as the Major has said, you guys don't give a shit about the consequences. You just want your little moral victory.


You know what? The funny thing is that I support the repeal of DADT to allow homosexuals to openly serve. But I support it being done the right way. And this is not it.

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 12:52 PM
Since anyone who opposes the repeal of DADT must be a closet case, does that mean that anyone who advocates for it is also gay? Is your support for the gay activist agenda proof of your sexual tastes? Or is it only those you disagree with who cannot hold an opinion that isn't based on some irrational bigotry?

I'm going to try to explain this to you, not that it will do any good, since once you are confronted with facts, you invariably abandon the thread, but I have to try.

The introduction of women into the armed forces in huge numbers, without prior thought, has created disciplinary and morale problems that the advocates refused to acknowledge, and therefore failed to mitigate. We can look at those problems and see where we will run into similar issues with gays.

First, there were differences in physical standards. Men and women have different performance requirements on the Army Physical Fitness Test, for example, with women doing fewer reps and getting more time on the run. A survey done a few years ago cited that Soldiers who merely pointed this out were accused of sexual harassment, even though it is an obvious fact, enshrined in the regulations. This won't be a problem with gays, but any negative attitudes based on any perception of preferential treatment will automatically become fodder for Equal Opportunity complaints.

So there's a minor change in logistics? Yes I'm sure that the military had to make some changes and accommodations with the introduction of women in the ranks, but do you, as a COMMISSIONED OFFICER of the US Military, believe that the introduction of Women was a bad idea?


Second, even innocuous relationships between men and women become grist for the gossip mill. I once had a conversation with a female mechanic which was completely innocent (I wanted to know when my track would be FMC) and later had to quash a rumor that I was interested in her because afterwards, she told another Soldier that she thought that I was "cute." I have learned to be very circumspect in dealing with female Soldiers in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Throw in gay and straight Soldiers sleeping in the same barracks, using the same showers and otherwise being compelled to live and work in close quarters, and you have increased the risk of gossip and inuendo undermining command relationships by an order of magnitude.

Soldiers can handle rockets, IED's, bullets, and suicide bombers, but God help them if gossip starts.



Third, if the appearance of a relationship is destructive, imagine what actual relationships will do. Male and female Soldiers bunk in separate quarters and still manage to hook up, with highly negative consequences for everyone. Barracks affairs create jealosy, favoritism and conflict. Careers end over ilicit relationships. I personally know a CSM who returned from a tour in Iraq as a Specialist. You read that right. He was reduced from E9 to E4 because of an affair with a subordinate and the ensuing issues that came out of it (including a fight with another Soldier over her). And these are Soldiers in separate living areas. Imagine what will happen when two same-sex Soldiers set up housekeeping. For that matter, imagine what happens in CONUS, which leads to...

On post housing, marriage retreats, you name it. Right now, the army has family housing and single housing on post. We don't have hooches for unmarried couples who cohabitate, but since gay marriage is illegal, we will have to change our rules, which will mean either allowing gay couples to cohabitate on post, or recognizing gay marriages.

Right, more logistics. Every other military in the industrialized world let's gays serve, they do just fine. Do you think our military is less capable?


And, of course, that's really what this is about, isn't it? You don't care if gays serve in the armed forces, and the vast majority of gays certainly don't plan to. What you care about is finding a back door (no pun intended) way to impose gay marriage on the US. This is a Trojan Horse for a completely unrelated issue, just like trying to tack repeal of DADT and an amnesty for illegals on the Defense appropriation in the senate.

There have been many skilled, valuable soldiers, including those who speak Arabic (a valuable skill during the start of today's wars) who have been kicked out because they were gay. Wasting resources is simply stupid.




And, I will ask again: What is the benefit to the military of repealing DADT? I've told you the consequences, which you refuse to acknowledge, but you've never even tried to present the case for it from a military standpoint. Why not? Don't you think that having openly gay Soldiers in the ranks will improve anything in the military? Or do you just not care?

More people with a wide variety of skills are going to sign up. Do you agree that the military needs as many strong new recruits as it can get?

djones520
10-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Right, more logistics. Every other military in the industrialized world let's gays serve, they do just fine. Do you think our military is less capable?


Then you don't mind adding a couple billion more to the defense budget so we can build the new quarters for all these people. :rolleyes:


Soldiers can handle rockets, IED's, bullets, and suicide bombers, but God help them if gossip starts.

Military suicide rates are already higher then civilian. But hey, lets just put that much more stress into the lives of people who deal with IED's bullets, and suicide bombers for their everyday job.


There have been many skilled, valuable soldiers, including those who speak Arabic (a valuable skill during the start of today's wars) who have been kicked out because they were gay. Wasting resources is simply stupid.


And there are others to take their place.


More people with a wide variety of skills are going to sign up. Do you agree that the military needs as many strong new recruits as it can get?


Last I saw we were meeting all of our recruiting needs.

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 01:05 PM
Homosexuals serve openly in the military in just about every other western nation, including Israel of all places.... which has one of the most powerful and elite military forces in the world next to our own.

But it couldn't possibly work here, I'm sure.
The Israelis restrict openly gay service members to support and rear echelon positions (no pun intended). They don't permit them in combat units, especially elite units, for the reasons that I've described. In addition, the Israelis restrict the roles of women in the IDF to the same areas. The reason for this is that during the 1948 war, they had women in combat brigades, and discovered that male Soldiers were so horrified by the sight of female casualties that they would either place themselves at greater risk to prevent them, or hold them back, thus compromising the mission. They also discovered that Arab troops considered surrender to units with women in them to be dishonorable, and they also sought female prisoners for reasons which should be obvious. As a result, they often fought harder against mixed units. The end result of the policy was higher casualties on both sides. The Israelis rightfully saw the repeal of that policy as a moral imperative, as any commander who fails to take all appropriate actions to mitigate casualties while accomplishing the mission has abrogated the trust and violated the loyalty of his subordinates.

I'm no expert on the IDF, but I doubt they have to worry about things like MEO like we have to in our military. The liberal ideology gripping this nation has made our military so afraid to look at it's own shadow that it just creates even more problems for allowing gays to openly serve.

You want to guess how many times I've had to sit in sexual assualt awareness classes that flat out tell me I'm a rapist because I'm a man?

Or how many man hours I've wasted on being trained on how to make sure I don't offend ANYONE?

Care to guess how this incorporation is going to affect things like that?

Nope, I bet you don't. Because as the Major has said, you guys don't give a shit about the consequences. You just want your little moral victory.

You know what? The funny thing is that I support the repeal of DADT to allow homosexuals to openly serve. But I support it being done the right way. And this is not it.

I'm not sure that it can be done the right way, for the reasons that I've said. I think that this is a ploy to advance gay marriage, rather than a military issue, and the advocates have made no arguments as to the benefits that will accrue from the change, and I also think that it will be used to cull personnel who don't conform to the PC culture that will be imposed in order to enforce the ruling. The former has nothing to do with readiness or any other military value, and the latter actually erodes our capabilities. We opponents have listed plenty of severe consequences to the lifting of the ban, but I'm still waiting for Wei, Wilbur or Arroyo to tell me why they consider this a good idea. I don't think that I'll hold my breath.

djones520
10-21-2010, 01:15 PM
I think it can be done Major. Surveys conducted over the last couple of decades have shown that the American populace as a whole has been growing more and more comfortable with homosexuality. This trend is going to just keep happening.

I would say in 15-20 years the US Military will be ready for full integration. Maybe 15 years from now pass some legislation (after the Military leadership says its ok), that will provide money for things like building seperate living quarters. Give the military a few years to make sure it's logistically ready to handle it, and to give the current service members times to come to grips with it, and let those who don't wish to serve alongside them get out.

Then open the doors.

But we need to ensure we hold them to the same exact standards we are held to. They need to be just as "sensitive" towards us as we would be required to be towards them. IE, they are treated no differantly when it comes to MEO issues. Within a few years, I think it would work out. Israel makes it work, so we can as well.

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 01:16 PM
The military was ordered to racially integrate before the rest of the nation did, and they cited similar problems of troop readiness, solidarity, trust, gossip, ect.

They did alright then

djones520
10-21-2010, 01:20 PM
The military was ordered to racially integrate before the rest of the nation did, and they cited similar problems of troop readiness, solidarity, trust, gossip, ect.

They did alright then

Ok... the stupidty of this comment goes beyond saying... I'm just going to point out one single thing about this, and leave the rest alone.


We weren't at war in 1949.

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 01:24 PM
We were a year after and last I checked South Korea still has US troops.

djones520
10-21-2010, 01:34 PM
We were a year after and last I checked South Korea still has US troops.

Edit: And by the way, it took 5 years to fully enact desegregation in the US military. It wasn't an overnight process.

And it doesn't even touch on the logistical, and morale issue that it brings up. You keep saying, with no amount of knowledge or experience to back it up, that there won't be a problem, when the people who have experience keep telling you what problems there will be.

I bet if you'd shut the fuck up for a few minutes, and actually think that maybe we know what we are talking about, ESPECIALLY since I want to see full integration, then you'd realize how much your talking out of your ass.

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 01:46 PM
Oh don't pull this experience card bullshit.

The former and the current chairmen of the joint cheifs of staff, former secretary of defense, and other high ranking officials agreed that DADT should be repealed.

Wanna argue with their experience too?

CueSi
10-21-2010, 01:47 PM
The military was ordered to racially integrate before the rest of the nation did, and they cited similar problems of troop readiness, solidarity, trust, gossip, ect.

They did alright then

And RACE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. . . Tom Cruise on a lightpost, when will people understand this?!

~QC

obx
10-21-2010, 01:49 PM
And RACE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. . . Tom Cruise on a lightpost, when will people understand this?!

~QC

Ditto. Never has been, never will be.
________
Marijuana vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.info/)

CueSi
10-21-2010, 01:50 PM
I can't. If gays really cared about the military, they'd be counterprotesting at the Westboro Baptist Church events at military funerals. Hasn't happened, even though Westboro is attacking the military because they loathe gays and think that the US is already too gay-friendly (I can only imagine what this will do to spur their activities). There is a lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court on this very issue right now. Has any gay group filed an amicus brief supporting the right of military families to not have their grief disrupted by idiots? No? Why not? You'd think that at least one gay group would demonstrate a commitment to the families of the departed and the people that they want to serve with, but for some reason, that hasn't happened. Care to explain why that is?

And, with all due respect to your brother, I can well imagine him having to put up with all sorts of disciplinary issues that will arise from this ruling. Thanks to the way that the military brought women in, we now have mandatory classes on the prevention of sexual harassment and sexual assault, unit victim advocates and a host of other programs which deal with the issues, all at the expense of time and resources that could otherwise be spent on the primary missions of our units. How much more stress will gays put on the military? How many more accomodations will have to be made in order to prevent conflict among young, highly stressed, heavily armed combat troops who are now going to feel uncomfortable in common areas such as latrines and showers?

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're not a leftist ideologue who loathes the armed forces and gets off on undermining our missions and slandering our commanders. Why don't you tell me exactly what benefits this change in policy will bring to the armed forces? How will this enhance readiness, training, unit cohesion and all of the other aspects of a combat organization? What combat multipliers will gays and lesbians bring to the force? You can answer that, can't you? You have spent time studying the problem from that perspective, haven't you?

Oh, and THIS. On the board I post on for bisexual people, very few people are actually pro-military and hold the few former military personnel that DO post in contempt. It's usually me, the two or three non-liberal members and one other person who show any friendliness toward military people and thats just SAD. There are a couple active duty that pass by, but they never last long.

~QC

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 01:51 PM
About time you weighed in. Now, let's see if you have identified anything of value...


So there's a minor change in logistics? Yes I'm sure that the military had to make some changes and accommodations with the introduction of women in the ranks, but do you, as a COMMISSIONED OFFICER of the US Military, believe that the introduction of Women was a bad idea?

The way that it was done? Absolutely. Commanders should have anticipated the social and physical consequences and taken steps to mitigate them before we had the disruptions.

As for the logiistics, are you prepared to expand housing facilities at every installation in CONUS and in combat zones to accomodate gay Soldiers? That's not a minor cost, it's a major issue, especially given what is about to happen to our budgets. Obama's allies in congress have already proposed massive defense cutbacks, which, given that we have a decade of combat to repair and refit from, is not the brightest idea in the world. Now, you want to divert even more resources to satisfying a small but vocal pressure group that adds nothing in terms of readiness? No thanks.


Soldiers can handle rockets, IED's, bullets, and suicide bombers, but God help them if gossip starts.
That's right, God help us, because the reason that we can handle rockets, IEDs, bullets, suicide bombers, not to mention backbiting anti-war activists and congress members who will sell us out in a heartbeat if it advances their agenda, is because we trust each other. My troops know that I will treat them ethically, honestly and without prejudice. If rumors undermine my ability to lead, and their ability to trust each other, then our ability to withstand the dangers that you cited, but have never faced, will erode.


Right, more logistics. Every other military in the industrialized world let's gays serve, they do just fine. Do you think our military is less capable?
Not yet. But how many of those other militaries actually have to fight and win wars? Very few nations send more than token support to our ops, and most NATO allies have long ago resigned themselves to being unable to project power beyond their own borders. If you see your military as a repository for shiny medals and spiffy uniforms, and have lost touch with what those trappings stand for, then there's nothing wrong with making it more PC and less effective, but at the end of the day, those sham organizations are going to turn to us to protect them when the world goes to hell.


There have been many skilled, valuable soldiers, including those who speak Arabic (a valuable skill during the start of today's wars) who have been kicked out because they were gay. Wasting resources is simply stupid.
You mean, like wasting resources on separate barracks? Oh, wait, you're in favor of that. Okay, let's look at the numbers. Since Clinton initiated DADT 1994, 13,389 have been discharged under the policy. That's an average of roughly 836 per year. Sounds like a lot, right? Except that out of a military end strength of 3,017,414 personnel, that's a drop in the bucket. And, since 1992, 24,000 soldiers have been discharged from the Army alone for being overweight. That doesn't mean that they couldn't pass a PT test, just that they exceeded the height/weight ratio. We also discharge people for:


Parenthood.
Physical or Mental Condition.
Disability.
Minority Enlistment. No, it's not what you think. It refers to persons under the age of 17.
Erroneous Enlistment.
Fraudulent Entry
Unsatisfactory Performance.

And, we're about to go through what we normally call a RIF, or Reduction in Force. At a time when capable servicemembers are being culled due to end strength reductions, do we really need members who will require additional resources to integrate them into the force?


More people with a wide variety of skills are going to sign up. Do you agree that the military needs as many strong new recruits as it can get?

You know this for a fact? How many gays will sign up for military service if DADT were repealed? I saw thousands show up for weddings on the day that California's legalization of gay marriage went into effect, not so many when the judge ordered the DOD to admit gays. Some gay activist groups have said that they were planning to send people to enlist at recruiting stations to test it, but if gays are chomping at the bit to join, why would the groups have to send people? Shouldn't we have been inundated already? The answer is that, in fact, there hasn't been a stampede because the vast majority of gays who identify with that agenda are indifferent or hostile to the military. They want the ban eliminated, but they don't intend to join. But, more people will leave, or choose not to join in the first place if the ban is dropped. I once recruited an individual who was concerned about being hassled in the shower or other areas by gays, and I was able to assure him that such conduct was forbidden. Now, I won't be able to say that. If I hadn't then, I doubt that he would have signed up. Have any of the advocates run the numbers on how repealing DADT will impact recruitment and retention? Do they even care? Of course not.

CueSi
10-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Ditto. Never has been, never will be.

And to me, it's just an act of laziness to pull the comparison. Now, IIOFD, I do want to see the ban repealed (in an Orderly Fashion, thank you!). . .but to keep playing that chestnut is unfair.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Two things are not exactly the same thing?

Stop the presses!

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 02:01 PM
I think it can be done Major. Surveys conducted over the last couple of decades have shown that the American populace as a whole has been growing more and more comfortable with homosexuality. This trend is going to just keep happening.

I would say in 15-20 years the US Military will be ready for full integration. Maybe 15 years from now pass some legislation (after the Military leadership says its ok), that will provide money for things like building seperate living quarters. Give the military a few years to make sure it's logistically ready to handle it, and to give the current service members times to come to grips with it, and let those who don't wish to serve alongside them get out.

Then open the doors.

But we need to ensure we hold them to the same exact standards we are held to. They need to be just as "sensitive" towards us as we would be required to be towards them. IE, they are treated no differantly when it comes to MEO issues. Within a few years, I think it would work out. Israel makes it work, so we can as well.
It's not a tolerance issue. It's a readiness issue. Multiply the amount of time that you spend in EO, POSH and other classes.

The military was ordered to racially integrate before the rest of the nation did, and they cited similar problems of troop readiness, solidarity, trust, gossip, ect.

They did alright then
Did they? The force had huge racial problems because they didn't take the consequences into account. The army had huge racial issues in the 50s and 60s, issues that didn't end until well into the 70s. The first ever mutiny on a US warship occurred over a racial conflict. I served with Soldiers who were around for that period, and I remember the horror stories of armed Staff Duty Officers having to be escorted into certain barracks because one group or another had claimed dominance, and anyone not of the right race would be killed. We had fraggings and violent altercations throughout the military, and it took a zero tolerance policy over two decades to weed out those who couldn't adapt. Am I saying that it was the wrong thing to do? No. But the way that it was done led to deaths, blighted careers and horrendous morale and cohesion problems, and we, as leaders, owe it to our troops to learn from those mistakes.

And RACE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. . . Tom Cruise on a lightpost, when will people understand this?!

~QC
Exactly. But for those who want to claim the mantle of civil rights, that's not something that they want to acknowledge.

Oh, and THIS. On the board I post on for bisexual people, very few people are actually pro-military and hold the few former military personnel that DO post in contempt. It's usually me, the two or three non-liberal members and one other person who show any friendliness toward military people and thats just SAD. There are a couple active duty that pass by, but they never last long.

~QC
Hooah. I appreciate the back up. And please, do not mistake my opposition to the change in policy for anything less than my my utmost admiration for you. If more GBLTs would demonstrate your clarity on the issue, I'd be less opposed to the change.

CueSi
10-21-2010, 02:03 PM
Two things are not exactly the same thing?

Stop the presses!

You don't care, do you? It's just another pawn to be moved, another constituency to be used. Sexual orientation is a form of behavior. Race is a benign physical characteristic. . .a "social construct". You can't put these two in the same boat.

Wei... kiss my black ass and fuck yourself.

~QC

CueSi
10-21-2010, 02:07 PM
Hooah. I appreciate the back up. And please, do not mistake my opposition to the change in policy for anything less than my my utmost admiration for you. If more GBLTs would demonstrate your clarity on the issue, I'd be less opposed to the change.


The thing is... like gay marriage, there are people in the LBGT community that don't give a damn about repealing DADT, simply observe it and know that there are reasons for it. One military wife that posts explained why the policy makes sense in her view.

It didn't go over too well.

I attempted to enlist twice: The first time (USMC), my epilepsy was the problem. The second time (USCG) was my weight. I planned on serving in the closet. Life was going to be hard enough serving with guys, but to have women wary of me? Nah.

~QC

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 02:13 PM
The thing is... like gay marriage, there are people in the LBGT community that don't give a damn about repealing DADT, simply observe it and know that there are reasons for it. One military wife that posts explained why the policy makes sense in her view.

It didn't go over too well.

I attempted to enlist twice: The first time (USMC), my epilepsy was the problem. The second time (USCG) was my weight. I planned on serving in the closet. Life was going to be hard enough serving with guys, but to have women wary of me? Nah.

~QC

You get it. Which is why you'd have been a great Marine, and as long as you didn't define yourself by your sexuality, you'd have done very well.

The problem with this is that being openly gay is a lifestyle choice, and so is being in the military, and there are genuine conflicts between the two. Unless we can resolve them, the end result of lifting the ban will be disastrous.

CueSi
10-21-2010, 02:17 PM
You get it. Which is why you'd have been a great Marine, and as long as you didn't define yourself by your sexuality, you'd have done very well.

The problem with this is that being openly gay is a lifestyle choice, and so is being in the military, and there are genuine conflicts between the two. Unless we can resolve them, the end result of lifting the ban will be disastrous.

Oh quiet... I'm sensitive and stuff. . .the USMC would have. . .not been a good fit. :p

I think I see what you did there. . . and I like it.

~QC

jediab
10-21-2010, 02:35 PM
I attempted to enlist twice: The first time (USMC)
~QC

Personally I think CueSi with a rifle would be hot! :D

Bailey
10-21-2010, 02:36 PM
Personally I think CueSi with a rifle would be hot! :D

Ya but I bet her Drill instructor would be in trouble if she was PMSing :D

jediab
10-21-2010, 02:40 PM
Ya but I bet her Drill instructor would be in trouble if she was PMSing :D

:eek:

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 03:16 PM
Personally I think CueSi with a rifle would be hot! :D
Yes, but the body armor would subtract from the overall effect. I'd say more, but I just completed the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) class, and I'd hate to undo all of that training.


Oh quiet... I'm sensitive and stuff. . .the USMC would have. . .not been a good fit. :p

I think I see what you did there. . . and I like it.

~QC
Oh, I don't know about that. The Marines are known for their exquisite sensitivies. Just watch the first five minutes of Full Metal Jacket to see how touchy the DI is about the most minor things. :D

wilbur
10-21-2010, 03:49 PM
And RACE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. . . Tom Cruise on a lightpost, when will people understand this?!

~QC

I've see you get worked up over this before, but there are many parallels between homosexual racial discrimination/oppression. They are not the same thing (duh), but the situations definitely rhyme.

When it comes to issues like marriage and the military, the nature of the controversies (as well as all the arguments for and against various positions) have been essentially identical.

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 04:14 PM
I've see you get worked up over this before, but there are many parallels between homosexual racial discrimination/oppression. They are not the same thing (duh), but the situations definitely rhyme.
Only if you see sexual behavior as being the same as physical characteristics, a comparison that most blacks loathe. In that regard, the better analogy is the integration of women into the force, which was followed by massive disruptions, serious disciplinary and social problems and huge expenses. Wei has decided that retaining a few thousand personnel out of 3.4 million is worth the grief, especially since he won't be the one to have to deal with it. What is your cost-benefit analysis? What is the upside for the armed forces if we revoke DADT? How do you think will it enhance our ability to do our mission (note, I'm not asking for objective evidence on a subject that you know next to nothing about, I'm just asking for your opinion. You can express an opinion on this aspect of the issue, can't you)?


When it comes to issues like marriage and the military, the nature of the controversies (as well as all the arguments for and against various positions) have been essentially identical.

Does this mean that you acknowledge that to the activists, DADT is part and parcel of the gay marriage debate?

wilbur
10-21-2010, 04:29 PM
Only if you see sexual behavior as being the same as physical characteristics, a comparison that most blacks loathe.

Discrimination against homosexuals occurs often without any homosexual acts on the part of the victim. People have been fired, beaten up, or even killed simply because of their orientation, not their behavior. Trying to play it as a 'choice' rather than biology just doesn't cover it here.

And orientation, to the best of our knowledge, is hardwired... or at least much more than a conscious decision.



In that regard, the better analogy is the integration of women into the force, which was followed by massive disruptions, serious disciplinary and social problems and huge expenses.


Yea, but there are gay people in the military now, under DNDT. They take showers with, bunk with, live with, and fight with other soldiers of the same sex. All this talk of creating separate living arrangements etc just leaves me scratching my head.

If you wanted to tell your little homophobic recruit buddy the truth, you should have told him under DNDT, he won't know which of his shower mates are gay.... he'd be at risk all the time. Everyone is a suspect! Under an open policy, he would probably know, and could act accordingly ;)



Wei has decided that retaining a few thousand personnel out of 3.4 million is worth the grief, especially since he won't be the one to have to deal with it. What is your cost-benefit analysis? What is the upside for the armed forces if we revoke DADT? How do you think will it enhance our ability to do our mission (note, I'm not asking for objective evidence on a subject that you know next to nothing about, I'm just asking for your opinion. You can express an opinion on this aspect of the issue, can't you)?


Well, there have been cases where the military has been harmed as a result of DNDT... see how we had to fire a couple dozen arabic translators when we were facing a shortage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206




Does this mean that you acknowledge that to the activists, DADT is part and parcel of the gay marriage debate?

I'm not saying DNDT repeal is connected with or the same as the marriage debate.

I was saying that the issues of interracial marriage and gay marriage are essentially identical, even down to the core arguments presented by the differing camps on the subject.

And the issues of gays in the military and blacks in the military are essentially identical with one another in the same respects.

Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 04:54 PM
The one thing I'm pretty optimistic about is that if this thing passes then gays will probably adapt into units with little problem. We have it now. If you guys don't believe there are gays and lesbians in the military, then you haven't been watching very closely. I've know plenty over the years. They may have not spoken about it openly, but they were there. The one thing I've observed is that there haven't been too many flaunty flamers that ever wanted to join the military.

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that they have to follow the UCMJ and Commander's policies just like anyone else. If you violate the policy, then you get hammered just like anyone else. You're not going to go around groping each other and flaunting yourself in an unproffessional manner when you're a hetero...so you're not going to do it when your a homo either.

I'm not sure how to deal with the shower thing though? :o

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 05:36 PM
Discrimination against homosexuals occurs often without any homosexual acts on the part of the victim. People have been fired, beaten up, or even killed simply because of their orientation, not their behavior. Trying to play it as a 'choice' rather than biology just doesn't cover it here.

And orientation, to the best of our knowledge, is hardwired... or at least much more than a conscious decision.

That's not what Wei thinks. He says that it's a "social construct." Perhaps you should compare notes before you try to argue the same case.


Yea, but there are gay people in the military now, under DNDT. They take showers with, bunk with, live with, and fight with other soldiers of the same sex. All this talk of creating separate living arrangements etc just leaves me scratching my head.

As do many things, such as answering whether you think America is great. But what makes you scratch your head is often very simple to those of us who have a closer relationship to a problem. Would you have men and women live in the same quarters? Would you tell female Soldiers that they had to shower with men? Of course not. The issue isn't that there are gay Soldiers serving sub rosa, it's that they don't act on their orientation where they can be exposed. It maintains same-sex facilities as safe zones, where any sexual contact is forbidden. Think of it this way: If a male is in a female latrine, and is accused of rape, the basic assumption is that he should not have been in that latrine in the first place, because it is gender-specific. Now, if you had a co-ed latrine, and a sex act occurs, if a rape accusation is made, who is at fault? The burden of proof is now on the victim. That's why certain areas are designated safe zones. If, suddenly, consensual sexual behavior can occur in a given area, then non-consensual sex can also occur there much more easily, and it becomes harder to police conduct.


If you wanted to tell your little homophobic recruit buddy the truth, you should have told him under DNDT, he won't know which of his shower mates are gay.... he'd be at risk all the time. Everyone is a suspect! Under an open policy, he would probably know, and could act accordingly ;)
I did tell him the truth. I told him that such actions are forbidden by UCMJ. But, I do find it funny that a young man who is concerned about having to rebuff advances from gay men in a vulnerable situation (like a shower) is automatically homophobic? Is a woman who is concerned about being raped by a man automatically androphobic?

Well, there have been cases where the military has been harmed as a result of DNDT... see how we had to fire a couple dozen arabic translators when we were facing a shortage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206
And the most destructive OPSEC violation of the last decade was committed by a gay Soldier who was disgruntled. Guess it evens out.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_military0732_08_02.asp


I'm not saying DNDT repeal is connected with or the same as the marriage debate.

I was saying that the issues of interracial marriage and gay marriage are essentially identical, even down to the core arguments presented by the differing camps on the subject.

And the issues of gays in the military and blacks in the military are essentially identical with one another in the same respects.

Opponents to integration argued against blacks in the Army because they were afraid that there would be sex between men in the barracks? Somehow, I missed that argument. Of course, it was before I was born, but I still think that if the issue had been raised, I'd have read about it.

Besides, they aren't the same. Blacks had served in segregated units for decades before integration. They had already proven their value as Soldiers. Closeted gays have a much more checkered record. First, quite a few came out at the height of the IED war, when casualties were runnning highest. Second, not everyone who has been discharged for being gay was. It's always been a convenient dodge.

Third, most of the gays who have been discharged were not exposed because of their simple profession of orientation, but because of other misconduct, some of it quite serious. For example, in FY2009, there were 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports (http://www.sapr.mil/). That's close to 400 reports of male victims of sexual assault within the armed forces. The suspects were overwhelmingly male, with only 27 female suspects, and many of them were suspects in same-sex assaults. So, to put it in perspective, out of 373 cases of sexual trauma with male victims, the lowest possible number of men who were assaulted by other men was 346. A VA survey uncovered over 22,000 cases among service members seeking services. (http://books.google.com/books?id=yh5PKXIKU3IC&pg=PA14261&lpg=PA14261&dq=armed+forces+rape+statistics+male+on+male+VA+St udy&source=bl&ots=5wVl8yKwVH&sig=9eu3nMI4gesvmmNo4Su9hCUZ5uA&hl=en&ei=B7LATN7XOZOWtAPAyYHqBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false) But, it's just like integration, right?

CueSi
10-21-2010, 07:05 PM
I've see you get worked up over this before, but there are many parallels between homosexual racial discrimination/oppression. They are not the same thing (duh), but the situations definitely rhyme.

When it comes to issues like marriage and the military, the nature of the controversies (as well as all the arguments for and against various positions) have been essentially identical.

Is that supposed to make it alright? There's other factors and facets, as I and others pointed out. And the gay military community isn't 100% for the repeal either. I don't think it was even an argument in the black military community unless you know of some black Americans who didn't want integration in the armed forces--it is not the same thing. Also - -the logistical challenge of a post-DADT armed forces will dwarf a post segregation military in some respects, if the less optimistic assessments are to be believed.

And we're only talking LBG...the T's may want in on this party too...just saying.

~QC

AmPat
10-22-2010, 12:05 AM
I'm missing some information. DADT did not replace any regulations. It was a policy layered over top of existing regulations. I believe those regulations are still in effect. With DADT removed and no replacement policy, does this not make it easier to eject the openly gay service members?

KhrushchevsShoe
10-22-2010, 03:45 AM
You're fighting an avalanche guys. Polling indicates a pretty overwhelming support for repeal of DADT and Gay Marriage amongst the under-30's. You can fight tooth and nail but its pretty obvious who is going to win.

CueSi
10-22-2010, 03:59 AM
You're fighting an avalanche guys. Polling indicates a pretty overwhelming support for repeal of DADT and Gay Marriage amongst the under-30's. You can fight tooth and nail but its pretty obvious who is going to win.

The under 30's aren't the ones making the decisions, though. Polls don't decide strategy. I'm a civilian and I know this. PS. . .I'm for lifting DADT, and stuff like this isn't going to sway the die-hards making the decisions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMUuOPsa0o
Pick a dope slap. One fits you somewhere.

~QC

Sonnabend
10-22-2010, 07:28 AM
Wei: If you don't moderate your tone when speaking to Odysseus, you'll be sorry later. You are addressing a Major in the armed forces, and as such his opinion makes a hell of a loot more sense than yours.

I, and others, are getting sick of the contemptuous tone you use with him.

Back off.

wilbur
10-22-2010, 08:46 AM
That's not what Wei thinks. He says that it's a "social construct." Perhaps you should compare notes before you try to argue the same case.


I don't know why... we aren't a unit. We each have our own beliefs and opinions, and I doubt they coincide on much. Sexual orientation certainly isn't a "social construct", and if he says so, I disagree. So what?



As do many things, such as answering whether you think America is great. But what makes you scratch your head is often very simple to those of us who have a closer relationship to a problem. Would you have men and women live in the same quarters? Would you tell female Soldiers that they had to shower with men? Of course not. The issue isn't that there are gay Soldiers serving sub rosa, it's that they don't act on their orientation where they can be exposed. It maintains same-sex facilities as safe zones, where any sexual contact is forbidden. Think of it this way: If a male is in a female latrine, and is accused of rape, the basic assumption is that he should not have been in that latrine in the first place, because it is gender-specific. Now, if you had a co-ed latrine, and a sex act occurs, if a rape accusation is made, who is at fault? The burden of proof is now on the victim. That's why certain areas are designated safe zones. If, suddenly, consensual sexual behavior can occur in a given area, then non-consensual sex can also occur there much more easily, and it becomes harder to police conduct.


Those seem like some sensible reasons for separate quarters, but then again, DNDT has absolutely no effect on this scenario... since its perfectly possible for a male homosexual to assault another male *now*... in the same latrine. Homosexuals are in the military now, and if one is going to rape somebody, DNDT isn't going to prevent it. It seems like DNDT repeal would actually help this situation, since you would then know who to segregate.



I did tell him the truth. I told him that such actions are forbidden by UCMJ. But, I do find it funny that a young man who is concerned about having to rebuff advances from gay men in a vulnerable situation (like a shower) is automatically homophobic? Is a woman who is concerned about being raped by a man automatically androphobic?


Well, I can only go by what you shared, but sure it sounds like you gave him assurance that the rules which prevent a homosexual from openly admitting to his sexual orientation, actually prevent rape in showers. Seems far fetched to me.

And yea... if the guy had to ask this in an interview, I'd say he has an irrational fear of homosexuals... as if they are all just lurking in the shadows, waiting for their opportunity to get a shot at his ass. Maybe he has a history of abuse or something, but in any case.. it looks like homophobia now.

Its still hard to see how DNDT has any effect on this situation. Under DNDT, however, this guy won't know who to fear!



And the most destructive OPSEC violation of the last decade was committed by a gay Soldier who was disgruntled. Guess it evens out.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_military0732_08_02.asp


Interesting.. that at the center of this case, is the DNDT policy.



Opponents to integration argued against blacks in the Army because they were afraid that there would be sex between men in the barracks? Somehow, I missed that argument. Of course, it was before I was born, but I still think that if the issue had been raised, I'd have read about it.


Moving the goal posts.. the arguments that are being thrown around here are troop morale, logistics, cohesion, etc, not simply "sex in the barracks".



Besides, they aren't the same. Blacks had served in segregated units for decades before integration. They had already proven their value as Soldiers. Closeted gays have a much more checkered record. First, quite a few came out at the height of the IED war, when casualties were runnning highest. Second, not everyone who has been discharged for being gay was. It's always been a convenient dodge.

Third, most of the gays who have been discharged were not exposed because of their simple profession of orientation, but because of other misconduct, some of it quite serious. For example, in FY2009, there were 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports (http://www.sapr.mil/). That's close to 400 reports of male victims of sexual assault within the armed forces. The suspects were overwhelmingly male, with only 27 female suspects, and many of them were suspects in same-sex assaults. So, to put it in perspective, out of 373 cases of sexual trauma with male victims, the lowest possible number of men who were assaulted by other men was 346. A VA survey uncovered over 22,000 cases among service members seeking services. (http://books.google.com/books?id=yh5PKXIKU3IC&pg=PA14261&lpg=PA14261&dq=armed+forces+rape+statistics+male+on+male+VA+St udy&source=bl&ots=5wVl8yKwVH&sig=9eu3nMI4gesvmmNo4Su9hCUZ5uA&hl=en&ei=B7LATN7XOZOWtAPAyYHqBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false) But, it's just like integration, right?

Interesting stats, but this doesn't make the case that DNDT repeal inflames the situation. Do you just want to ban homosexuals from the military period, or what? Because it looks like that's where your arguments are aimed. You seem to want to say that among members of the homosexual population in the armed services there is unacceptable or abnormal amounts of cases of sexual assault. If that's the case, you should probably be arguing that the military needs to screen for sexual orientation and actively prevent homosexuals from serving. Why you're arguing for DNDT is still a mystery.

As it is, we currently don't know how many homosexuals are in the armed services, so we can't come to any meaningful conclusion about whether they present an unacceptably high risk of sexual assault, when compared with the general population. I really doubt they do.

wilbur
10-22-2010, 08:55 AM
Is that supposed to make it alright? There's other factors and facets, as I and others pointed out. And the gay military community isn't 100% for the repeal either. I don't think it was even an argument in the black military community unless you know of some black Americans who didn't want integration in the armed forces--it is not the same thing. Also - -the logistical challenge of a post-DADT armed forces will dwarf a post segregation military in some respects, if the less optimistic assessments are to be believed.

And we're only talking LBG...the T's may want in on this party too...just saying.

~QC

I was just saying that the comparison to race and sexual orientation is sometimes a valid one, because they have a lot in common.

Sometimes they so closely track on another on some issues, that if someone accepts some conclusion about a racial issue and doesn't also accept the same conclusion about a sexual orientation issue, they contradict themselves.

FlaGator
10-22-2010, 09:02 AM
I was just saying that the comparison to race and sexual orientation is sometimes a valid one, because they have a lot in common.

Sometimes they so closely track on another on some issues, that if one accepts some conclusion about a racial issue and doesn't also accept the same conclusion about a sexual orientation issue, they contradict themselves.

That is only true if sexual orientation is genetic and not a choice. So far the jury is out on that one

wilbur
10-22-2010, 09:07 AM
That is only true if sexual orientation is genetic and not a choice. So far the jury is out on that one

Not so much... whether its mostly genetic or mostly environmental or whatever is not known very well... but the jury is pretty overwhelmingly on the side of 'not a conscious choice'...

Bailey
10-22-2010, 09:52 AM
I was just saying that the comparison to race and sexual orientation is sometimes a valid one, because they have a lot in common.

Sometimes they so closely track on another on some issues, that if someone accepts some conclusion about a racial issue and doesn't also accept the same conclusion about a sexual orientation issue, they contradict themselves.


So do you believe transsexuals should serve? and if you say yes should the Military foot the bill? This is where its going to go if LGBT or whatever alphabet soup name they are going by this month.

wilbur
10-22-2010, 10:00 AM
So do you believe transsexuals should serve? and if you say yes should the Military foot the bill? This is where its going to go if LGBT or whatever alphabet soup name they are going by this month.

What are the rules on it now, and do the justifications for the repeal of DNDT do anything to address the justifications for those rules? If so, how?

FlaGator
10-22-2010, 10:13 AM
Not so much... whether its mostly genetic or mostly environmental or whatever is not known very well... but the jury is pretty overwhelmingly on the side of 'not a conscious choice'...

That is merely your opinion. For every source that you care to provide me that believes that homosexuality is an unconscious choice, I will be able to counter you with one that says it is a choice. So that means that the jury is still out. Geneticists can't find the "gay gene" and the proponents of environmental influence can't point out what environmental triggers come in to play. If the base cause or causes cannot be established then how can a rational argument be made that it is not a choice?

Interestingly the phrase you used 'not a conscious choice' still indicates that a choice is being made somewhere.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 10:27 AM
You're fighting an avalanche guys. Polling indicates a pretty overwhelming support for repeal of DADT and Gay Marriage amongst the under-30's. You can fight tooth and nail but its pretty obvious who is going to win.
Ah, the voice of Xerxes: "You Spartans are doomed. Surrender and live in honorable slavery, or resist and be overwhelmed." No thanks. Not that I don't think that it's going to be a tough fight, what with the media and academia overwhelmingly in favor of lifting the ban, but support isn't as overwhelming as you think. If it were, the Democrats would have enacted the change while they had supermajorities in the house and senate. It's not like Republicans could have stopped it. And Obama, who pays lip service to gays (and no, that's not meant as an inuendo), is still letting his Justice Department challenge the judge's ruling. Why would he be doing that if he really wanted the ban lifted? In other words, if it's an idea whose time has come, and it's hugely popular, why not simply allow the judge's ruling to stand? The answer is that it isn't popular, and the elites know it. It's like gay marriage, which we're told is popular among under 30s and the like, but which never wins when it's on the ballot.

And, under-30's will eventually grow up. As they do, their attitudes will change. I was much more liberal about certain things when I was in my twenties, but repeated exposure to reality changed my mind about many things. As Churchill famously said, If you're under thirty and not a socialist, you have no heart. If you're over thirty and still a socialist, you have no brains.


Wei: If you don't moderate your tone when speaking to Odysseus, you'll be sorry later. You are addressing a Major in the armed forces, and as such his opinion makes a hell of a loot more sense than yours.

I, and others, are getting sick of the contemptuous tone you use with him.

Back off.
Sonna, unless Wei specifically slanders me or the armed forces, he's got the right to express his opinion. My rank isn't a shield and he's not bound by UCMJ. Besides, if he didn't express his contempt for me, I'd wonder what I was doing wrong.

I don't know why... we aren't a unit. We each have our own beliefs and opinions, and I doubt they coincide on much. Sexual orientation certainly isn't a "social construct", and if he says so, I disagree. So what?

You are making sweeping claims about sexual orientation that your own side disagrees with. Perhaps the science isn't as settled as you'd like it to be?


Those seem like some sensible reasons for separate quarters, but then again, DNDT has absolutely no effect on this scenario... since its perfectly possible for a male homosexual to assault another male *now*... in the same latrine. Homosexuals are in the military now, and if one is going to rape somebody, DNDT isn't going to prevent it. It seems like DNDT repeal would actually help this situation, since you would then know who to segregate.

Again, look at the numbers. The number of gay Soldiers is infinitesmally small compared to the total size of the force, and yet the number of male on male rapes is apalling. Opening the floodgates to openly gay Soldiers will increase those numbers proportionally.


Well, I can only go by what you shared, but sure it sounds like you gave him assurance that the rules which prevent a homosexual from openly admitting to his sexual orientation, actually prevent rape in showers. Seems far fetched to me.
Let's try it another way. Let's say that group A has a propensity towards a certain behavior, which group B does not have. If group B membership is barred to members of group A, then very few members of group A will be in group B in the first place, so the people who have the propensity towards the restricted behavior would be minimized. Lifting the ban on group A means that more persons with a propensity towards the proscribed conduct will now be in group B, and the tendency for that behavior to occur will increase as the number of group A members increases.


And yea... if the guy had to ask this in an interview, I'd say he has an irrational fear of homosexuals... as if they are all just lurking in the shadows, waiting for their opportunity to get a shot at his ass. Maybe he has a history of abuse or something, but in any case.. it looks like homophobia now.
So, not wanted to be sexually assaulted in a shower is now homophobia? My, how times change. It wasn't in an interview. He was just a friend who was interested in signing up, and when Clinton was talking about lifting the ban in the first place, he got concerned.


Its still hard to see how DNDT has any effect on this situation. Under DNDT, however, this guy won't know who to fear!
No, under DADT (BTW, you do know that it stands for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or DADT, right? WTH is DNDT?), he didn't have to fear anyone. If something happened, he knew that the system would protect him, and that he had the right to protect himself.


Interesting.. that at the center of this case, is the DNDT policy.
So, you agree with his justification, that he had the right to endanger the lives of thousands of Americans and Afghans because he had a hissy fit over his sexual orientation not being recognized and celebrated by the military?


Moving the goal posts.. the arguments that are being thrown around here are troop morale, logistics, cohesion, etc, not simply "sex in the barracks".
Hardly. Sexual relations between servicemembers of any sex are corrosive to troop morale, unit cohesion and the like, and the logistics required to separate the genders reflect this basic truth.


Interesting stats, but this doesn't make the case that DNDT repeal inflames the situation. Do you just want to ban homosexuals from the military period, or what? Because it looks like that's where your arguments are aimed. You seem to want to say that among members of the homosexual population in the armed services there is unacceptable or abnormal amounts of cases of sexual assault. If that's the case, you should probably be arguing that the military needs to screen for sexual orientation and actively prevent homosexuals from serving. Why you're arguing for DNDT is still a mystery.
No, I want to ban homosexual conduct in the military. I'd also like a stricter separation of males and females, because almost all of the disciplinary issues that I had to deal with as a company commander involved fraternization or sexual misconduct. Throwing young, physically fit, mentally stressed people into close quarters and then telling them not to seek comfort from each other is unrealistic, but the consequences that arise when they do seek that comfort can be toxic. I argued against DADT when it was imposed for that reason, as well as another, which will probably not resonate with you, but one of the most basic honor codes in the Army is this, that I will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do. Does that sound like it squares with a policy that demands that Soldiers lie to their chain of command by omission?


As it is, we currently don't know how many homosexuals are in the armed services, so we can't come to any meaningful conclusion about whether they present an unacceptably high risk of sexual assault, when compared with the general population. I really doubt they do.
You'll pardon me if I decline to base my decisions on the safety and welfare of the Soldiers who depend on me on your doubts of what is and isn't a threat.

I was just saying that the comparison to race and sexual orientation is sometimes a valid one, because they have a lot in common.

Sometimes they so closely track on another on some issues, that if someone accepts some conclusion about a racial issue and doesn't also accept the same conclusion about a sexual orientation issue, they contradict themselves.
And sometimes they don't. I made a very compelling argument about the differences between the integration of blacks into the army and the lifting of the gay ban, which you ignored. This is a false analogy.

djones520
10-22-2010, 10:30 AM
Referencing the Spartans in a thread where your fighting against allowing gays to openly serve, might not be the best way to go Major. ;)

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 10:33 AM
What are the rules on it now, and do the justifications for the repeal of DNDT do anything to address the justifications for those rules? If so, how?

True story. We had a reserve unit that was sourced for mobilization several years ago. When the troops reported, they had a mechanic who was halfway through the transition from female to male. She/he had taken the hormones, but still had the plumbing, for lack of a better term. There was nothing in the regulations about it (and believe me, the BN CDR looked), so everyone was at a loss. The logistics and personnel issues were daunting. Was this person a male or female for billeting? PT? Latrines? How could they carry this individual on the battle roster, as a male or female; One of the NCOs suggested that this could be fixed by double-slotting him/her, which got a laugh, but didn't solve the problem so much as create a new problem, which was the mobilization cap for personnel deploying with the unit. Eventually, it was determined that the army could not provide the medical support needed to maintain this Soldier's transition, and she/he/whatever was REFRADed, but it was interesting while it lasted.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 10:35 AM
Referencing the Spartans in a thread where your fighting against allowing gays to openly serve, might not be the best way to go Major. ;)

It was either that, or McAuliffe's response at Bastogne, and "Nuts" seemed equally inappropriate to the topic. :D

Bailey
10-22-2010, 10:45 AM
What are the rules on it now, and do the justifications for the repeal of DNDT do anything to address the justifications for those rules? If so, how?

I am asking you if they repeal DADT, should transsexuals be able to serve and should the military foot the bill for their treatments?

pretty straightfoward question.

djones520
10-22-2010, 10:58 AM
I am asking you if they repeal DADT, should transsexuals be able to serve and should the military foot the bill for their treatments?

pretty straightfoward question.

The military will cover a few elective surgeries, even cosmetic ones. Corrective eye surgery, breast enhancement, some things like that.

I know the eye surgery is for things that can help improve job performance. I've read that the breast enhancement is for morale issues. It's not just "I want bigger boobs". I guess there's gotta be psychologic issues or something. *shrugs*

Tranny surgery though? I just don't see that happening. The costs would be massive, the recovery time huge. The affects on the workplace would be big.

In PACAF there was a contractor for one of our weather systems. When they were in the AF, it was a he. After they got out, he became a she. Working with this person was just WEIRD for everyone. And we only had to work with her on a rare occasion. Everyday? No, that just wouldn't work.

I'd see the military just opting to seperate the person.

noonwitch
10-22-2010, 11:05 AM
I am asking you if they repeal DADT, should transsexuals be able to serve and should the military foot the bill for their treatments?

pretty straightfoward question.



A few years ago, I had a trannie aquaintance who had served in the Vietnam War. She claime to have gotten the VA to pay for his surgery. I don't know whether that is true or not. I liked the person in question as a friend, she moved out of state a few years ago. I also felt she was a bit nuts-not harmful to others, but a little bit off, and very emotionally needy in her romantic relationships (with women, of all things).

I don't think that a man, who becomes a woman, then chooses women for sex partners, is emotionally clear-headed enough to serve in the military. I don't consider GLB people to be emotionally unstable, but I do consider transexuals to be unstable (and Bs over 30 to be immature and afraid of commitments). If a man cuts his own stuff off, we lock him up and declare him insane. If he gets a doctor to do it for him, it's somehow a life-affirming act, that some people even consider his "right".

I have a lot of compassion for trannies, because they are stuck once they've had the surgery, but they don't belong in the military.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 11:47 AM
I know the eye surgery is for things that can help improve job performance. I've read that the breast enhancement is for morale issues. It's not just "I want bigger boobs". I guess there's gotta be psychologic issues or something. *shrugs*

This explains some of the boobs in staff positions. :D

Paul Laxalt had a great column in today's American Spectator on the subject, and I'm quoting him here. For those who are currently in, I think that you'll agree that he sees the future pretty clearly. For those who refuse to believe anything but their own sense of moral superiority, you can go back to calling us bigots.


Cultural elites notwithstanding, homosexuality and its integration into society are anything but certain right now. Indeed, in our towns and communities, America is in the midst of a giant cage match over homosexuality's legal and cultural future. There is no need to rehash the arguments for this piece, but suffice it to say while there is an "elite" consensus there is certainly no American consensus. Yet, policy makers want to force homosexuality into the Armed Forces. Politicians, activist groups, and concerned citizens casually profess that it will be "fine" and the military must just adjust to today's cultural reality and allow gays to serve openly. Let's look at what this will actually mean for the U.S. Military.

Currently, the military holds annual training on everything imaginable, much of which is a result of political dustups after incidents. Such training must occur in every unit and command worldwide and is based on an instruction that undoubtedly took hours to produce and even more hours to be approved from layer after layer of military and political bosses. Not surprisingly, there is a Don't Ask, Don't Tell training instruction that explains the rules as they currently exist in the services. With any major change in the policy, unlike the minor modifications of last spring, new training must be held and an entire command must be shepherded into a room for the new guidance -- in every command, in every service, worldwide. So if the ban is lifted we know there will be more training. But training on what?

One type of expected training is on homosexual lifestyle accommodation, this, in fundamental opposition to not only standing military guidance but also widely held cultural views. As soon as there is a beating of an openly gay man on a ship then what must a commander to do? Unquestionably, a commander would send the attackers to a Courts Martial for trial under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Punishment, however, will not suffice. He will need to hold additional sensitivity training and merely telling the crew to leave all gay crew members alone will of course not do. The situation will inevitably demand that the Commander "educate" the crew on homosexuality. He will have to teach them, probably with Power Point, what homosexuality is and that it is an accepted and equal lifestyle in the military. Further, since openness is the official policy, he will in essence have to vigorously defend homosexuality. Beyond an official position of lack of tolerance for any derogatory activity towards homosexuals, he will have to express empathy, genuine or conjured, about how oppressed homosexuals are within the military. He will have to request that his team embrace them and make them feel at home in their choice regardless of what it is doing to morale or team cohesion. Starting to see the problems?

To those who currently tolerate homosexuals but retain their God‐given right to reject homosexuality as a practiced lifestyle -- could you do the above as a leader? Even for your country? It is one thing for the military to ask its members to accept homosexuals, but another for the military to ask its members to accept and live with homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle. Last, it will demand a third step: senior officers and non‐commissioned officers will have to, under the color of Military Law, proactively endorse and eventually foster homosexuality. You will undoubtedly lose great leaders: men of discipline with strong values -- unshakable belief in right and wrong -- the type who devote their lives to protecting you. Many will not cave in to this political demand.

Flash forward five years. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been lifted, and a commission has been called by Congress about why there are not enough homosexuals in senior leadership positions. Will there be pressure, subtle or overt, to make a homosexual in charge of a ship? Within five years, what if there is still not a homosexual Captain in the U.S. Navy who is in the top eleven out of over 1,000 Navy Captains to command an Aircraft Carrier -- a weapon system of unparalleled capacity possessing the ability to single-handedly wipe out dozens of nations at a time. Will the political pressure on flag officer leadership force a homosexual into command, regardless of ability? If so, will his sailors respect and follow? The consequences are realistic and dire. Currently a homosexual can gain such a command by merit alone, but for the cultural crusaders who fundamentally believe gays must be open no matter what the cost, competence is not a compelling military interest.

CueSi
10-22-2010, 01:11 PM
Not so much... whether its mostly genetic or mostly environmental or whatever is not known very well... but the jury is pretty overwhelmingly on the side of 'not a conscious choice'...

But being black is not a form of behavior... it is the passive expression of an arrangement of genetics. Sexual orientation is an ACTIVE expression of environmental, biological, and other factors as yet unknown.

As someone who is both black and bisexual... TRUST ME WHEN I SAY IT IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND SHOULD BE APPROACHED AS SUCH.

~QC

CueSi
10-22-2010, 01:14 PM
I was just saying that the comparison to race and sexual orientation is sometimes a valid one, because they have a lot in common.

Sometimes they so closely track on another on some issues, that if someone accepts some conclusion about a racial issue and doesn't also accept the same conclusion about a sexual orientation issue, they contradict themselves.

Just say it becomes easier to call that person a bigot and disregard them, cause I don't speak bullshit. :)

~QC

m00
10-23-2010, 02:04 AM
]It's not just about being in combat, and at any rate, in todays environment we are ALL combat troops.[/B] Even me in the Air Force. In the AF we undergo month long combat skill training courses before we deploy now, because the war environment we are in right now puts us on the front line as well.

So nobody gets to be an REMF anymore? :D

PoliCon
10-23-2010, 03:11 AM
people who have to walk around broadcasting their sexuality should not be in the military. I for one see no problem with gays serving - but when you work that closely with someone - when you need to be able to trust someone explicitly - this kind of bullshit can get in the way. Don't ask don't tell was the most sensible way to deal with this issue. It allowed gays to serve and kept them from becoming either targets or stumbling blocks.

wilbur
10-23-2010, 12:24 PM
Just say it becomes easier to call that person a bigot and disregard them, cause I don't speak bullshit. :)

~QC

Now who's doing the 'disregarding'?

wilbur
10-23-2010, 01:05 PM
But being black is not a form of behavior... it is the passive expression of an arrangement of genetics. Sexual orientation is an ACTIVE expression of environmental, biological, and other factors as yet unknown.


Sexual attraction is not a deliberate action, brought about by choice.* Its not dating or marrying other members of the species.. its the attraction, not the act. So sexual orientation is not really an active expression or behavior, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. Its a biological attraction to other members of the species.

You may say that many gay rights issues are about behavior and you would be right, but so were many issues about black civil rights... like interracial marriage. Interracial marriage isn't an innate passive expression of an arrangement of genetics, its behavior. A black man might not be able to avoid being black, but he sure can avoid marrying a white woman, just as a homosexual might not be able to avoid being homosexual, but he sure can avoid marrying another man.

* "Choice" is biological, and driven by our innate desires, over which we have no control. So this line of reasoning that says "Its a choice, therefore its something different than biology (and presumably blameworthy)" is totally misguided. But that is a whole 'nother can of worms...



As someone who is both black and bisexual... TRUST ME WHEN I SAY IT IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND SHOULD BE APPROACHED AS SUCH.


Sorry, the issues are just too similar in some respects to ignore the correlations.

And yes, we all know, believe me.. you're a bisexual black stripper. Unfortunately, being either or both really provides little, if any, extraordinary qualifications for speaking about the history and nature of civil rights, for gays or blacks.

And what does everyone think??? Would CueSi have gotten kicked out of the military before lunch or after lunch (on her first day) for breaking DADT, had she been able to join?

CueSi
10-23-2010, 01:49 PM
Now who's doing the 'disregarding'?

I know bullshit and overdone language when I hear it, wilbur. It's a tactic to meld two very sensitive issues together- when they really aren't the same -so you HAVE To accept A if you believe B. . . and that is bullshit.

I'm going to answer both your posts here.

I'm not saying it's a choice. You're starting out of the gate with a misunderstanding here. What the military is looking at IS the active expression of homosexuality. Just to be gay isn't what they're kicking people out for. It's the active expression of it, look at the posts in the topic. So fuck that on a stick with sauce.

To compare it to the civilian action of interracial marriage? What is this I don't even . . . MLK didn't even have it as a major goal (he actually discussed it in an advice column he did for Ebony called "Advice for living" (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol4/Sept-1957_AdviceForLiving.pdf)) of the civil rights movement while serving in the military on equal terms was something that was given even before Claudette Colvin refused to stand up and give up her seat. :p

Then use your brain and make some arguments.We're now back to the beginning...
~"You can't use that argument"
~"But I have to. It's kind of the same"
~"But it's not...the concerns and ramifications are different."
~"But it's the same"

Part of the argument FOR and AGAINST DADT is based on "being there" (that's actually how I came out against DADT, believe it or not...but I'm not for the contradictory legal BS the administration is doing)... why else do liberals shout down men who are pro-life because they aren't women? Like it or not, wilbur. ..there ARE somethings I will experience as a black person who is LBGT that you simply won't. (nice try to minimize my experience by using my former occupation, asshole. I never thought I'd meet a liberal who'd be so damn judgmental.)

Militaries through out history had gay people in their ranks and they functioned pretty fine... it wasn't until the advent of modern warfare and the Cold War where it was criminalized and seen as a major vulnerability in a fighting force , with potential for blackmail. That's something that should be studied and considered.

And unless I was lunching on one of my female soldiers... they probably would not have known. It's called don't ask don't tell. . .They don't ask, and I ain't telling. And besides, bi people are always harder to figure out.

~QC

AmPat
10-23-2010, 02:02 PM
people who have to walk around broadcasting their sexuality should not be in the military. I for one see no problem with gays serving - but when you work that closely with someone - when you need to be able to trust someone explicitly - this kind of bullshit can get in the way. Don't ask don't tell was the most sensible way to deal with this issue. It allowed gays to serve and kept them from becoming either targets or stumbling blocks.I deal with this in reality every day, not just as an academic, mental jerk off. I have a couple of gay/Bi soldiers in my unit. Believe me when I say it is not automatic to eject gays from the military. The level that it must go to reach a separartion is so high, most commanders won't deal with it. The negative impact on the unit morale isn't worth the risk if the command isn't successful with the elimination.

I don't see where eliminating DADT has done anything but cause a stir in the non-military world. All the "experts" are now going to come out and expouse their pet theories of how this will turn out. I say, nobody knows.

As for me, I'm nearly at retirement and glad to be leaving. It used to be that they asked you three times before you joined if you were homosexual. The idea was to eliminate recruits before they joined. Seems to me we are nearly full circle now and it's more acceptable to be homosexual than straight. Any active duty soldier can tell you all about the sensitivity training and POSH classes.
A female soldier gets mad at her soldier boyfriend= the accusation is enough to ruin him. Nearly catching homosexual soldiers in the act= not enough proof.

I for one am sick of the military being the playground for political correctness and social experimentation. We should be the muscle of the American will, not a demographic for liberals to attempt a political victory.

Molon Labe
10-23-2010, 05:20 PM
A female soldier gets mad at her soldier boyfriend= the accusation is enough to ruin him. Nearly catching homosexual soldiers in the act= not enough proof.

I for one am sick of the military being the playground for political correctness and social experimentation. We should be the muscle of the American will, not a demographic for liberals to attempt a political victory.

You got that right. I'll never forget getting the first mandatory briefing after the tailhook scandal. And the PC mandatory training just kept gettin worse and worse. All that PC social feel good stuff takes up way too much training time.
LOL! Reminds me of about a decade ago when a PLT SGT i know caught two female soldiers in the act. He just turned around and walked off, because he knew no one would do anything about it anyways.

PoliCon
10-23-2010, 07:23 PM
Sexual attraction is not a deliberate action, brought about by choice.* Its not dating or marrying other members of the species.. its the attraction, not the act. So sexual orientation is not really an active expression or behavior, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. Its a biological attraction to other members of the species. You may not choose to whom you are attracted - but you do choose how you ACT on that attraction. The 'gay rights' movement is not about gaining tolerance for the attraction - it's about gaining endorsement of how they choose to ACT on that attraction. The proof is in how gays who chose to be celibate rather than act on their attractions - most of the time because these persons believe the act to be a sin - are persecuted within the gay community.


You may say that many gay rights issues are about behavior and you would be right, but so were many issues about black civil rights... like interracial marriage. Interracial marriage isn't an innate passive expression of an arrangement of genetics, its behavior. A black man might not be able to avoid being black, but he sure can avoid marrying a white woman, just as a homosexual might not be able to avoid being homosexual, but he sure can avoid marrying another man. Laws against inter racial marriage were actually factually discriminatory. By banning interracial marriage the law was saying that a white man has rights that a black man does not - to marry a white woman. That is not the case with gay marriage. Gays are just no more limited than are straights. Gay men are not denied a right that straight men are give - the right to marry another man. In order for it to be a civil rights issue - straight men would have to be allowed to marry men while gay men are denied the same - which everyone knows is not the case.

ALL men and ALL women face the same rights and limitations with regards to marriage: You have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex - to whom you are not closely related - and whom you can convince to agree to such a union.

PoliCon
10-23-2010, 07:26 PM
I deal with this in reality every day, not just as an academic, mental jerk off. I have a couple of gay/Bi soldiers in my unit. Believe me when I say it is not automatic to eject gays from the military. The level that it must go to reach a separartion is so high, most commanders won't deal with it. The negative impact on the unit morale isn't worth the risk if the command isn't successful with the elimination.

I don't see where eliminating DADT has done anything but cause a stir in the non-military world. All the "experts" are now going to come out and expouse their pet theories of how this will turn out. I say, nobody knows.

As for me, I'm nearly at retirement and glad to be leaving. It used to be that they asked you three times before you joined if you were homosexual. The idea was to eliminate recruits before they joined. Seems to me we are nearly full circle now and it's more acceptable to be homosexual than straight. Any active duty soldier can tell you all about the sensitivity training and POSH classes.
A female soldier gets mad at her soldier boyfriend= the accusation is enough to ruin him. Nearly catching homosexual soldiers in the act= not enough proof.

I for one am sick of the military being the playground for political correctness and social experimentation. We should be the muscle of the American will, not a demographic for liberals to attempt a political victory.

Like I said - I have no problem with gays serving quietly. It's when they wanna stand up and grand stand that it becomes an issue. And you're right about the women making accusations like that. It's BULLSHIT. The term rape has been so abused and twisted that it is too often used as a tool of revenge. :mad:

Odysseus
10-25-2010, 11:51 AM
Sexual attraction is not a deliberate action, brought about by choice.* Its not dating or marrying other members of the species.. its the attraction, not the act. So sexual orientation is not really an active expression or behavior, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. Its a biological attraction to other members of the species.
No, it is the act. I don't know what my fellow troopie finds attractive unless he or she tells me or otherwise acts on it. I also don't care. I care when their attraction becomes disruptive to good order and discipline, such as when they date, marry or otherwise act on their proclivitities.


* "Choice" is biological, and driven by our innate desires, over which we have no control. So this line of reasoning that says "Its a choice, therefore its something different than biology (and presumably blameworthy)" is totally misguided. But that is a whole 'nother can of worms...

You are making an assertion and assuming it as fact. We do not know that choice is biological. We also don't know how much environment plays into it. Ultimately, we may never know, and if we do determine that it is a function strictly of biology, then that opens a can of worms that you don't want to address, namely, what if there were a medical means to prevent homosexuality? What if it could be identified in utero? Would parents be within their rights to abort a child who would be born with a predisposition to being gay? Would they be right to get hormone or gene therapy to "straighten" them out? Oh, what a brave new world you have discovered.
BTW, I didn't skip the miscegination paragraph, I simply didn't feel the need to add to Policon's superb rebuttal.


Sorry, the issues are just too similar in some respects to ignore the correlations.
Especially if you ignore all of the differences that don't support your arguments.


And yes, we all know, believe me.. you're a bisexual black stripper. Unfortunately, being either or both really provides little, if any, extraordinary qualifications for speaking about the history and nature of civil rights, for gays or blacks.

Speak for yourself. The more that we hear about this, the better. ;)

And what does everyone think??? Would CueSi have gotten kicked out of the military before lunch or after lunch (on her first day) for breaking DADT, had she been able to join? [/QUOTE]
Perhaps. Or perhaps she'd have kept her orientation to herself and had a great career? People are more than just the sum of their biology and urges. It's only liberals who believe that people cannot overcome their instincts, although even this is not consistent. For example, you believe that the most fundamental drive, the sexual drive, can be suppressed by openly gay Soldiers in the ranks, but cannot be suppressed in teenagers who are taught abstinence.

Meanwhile, Wilbur, this one's for you:
http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt173/jeffco55/effetemagr.jpg

wilbur
10-25-2010, 02:09 PM
Actually, in light of what AmPat says, that the military, except in rare instances, even bothers to discipline openly gay soldiers according to the policy, one wonders if it would be possible for DADT to be even more pointless? Why not save everyone all the bullshit and just repeal it?


No, it is the act. I don't know what my fellow troopie finds attractive unless he or she tells me or otherwise acts on it. I also don't care. I care when their attraction becomes disruptive to good order and discipline, such as when they date, marry or otherwise act on their proclivitities.



So lets get this straight... basically, dating or marrying in a same-sex relationship.... even if the other partner is not in the military... is disruptive? Is it unreasonably disruptive when straight soldiers do the same?

If not, then why is it disruptive for a homosexual? I'm interested to hear why.



You are making an assertion and assuming it as fact.

Every time someone here makes the claim "Its a choice, therefore X" they implicitly assert some pretty controversial and unsubstantiated claims about free will and the nature of choice, most of the time without realizing it. So I made a little effort to describe my view, which quite frankly... makes more sense.



We do not know that choice is biological.

Than what is it?

There are theories like dualism that say that our brain is just some meat sack which gets driven by some ethereal immaterial being that is "I"... but it becomes more irrelevant every day as neuroscience marches onward. In any case, we certainly know *some* choices are biological. We know our decision making process can be altered by our brain chemistry, through drugs, or other physical causes like tumors.

And alas, for all those dualists out there, there is absolutely no reliable way to determine if a choice originates from the character of our "immaterial self" or biological cause and effect. So if one is in the business of assigning blame to our choices based on the belief that it originated from our spirits, than we are in some big trouble... because its simply impossible to determine. Therefore it becomes impossible to say "Its a choice, therefore you should be held accountable for it"... because you simply can't know if it was a "real" choice or not.

So for all you "its a choice'ers", you're simply up shit creek without a paddle.



We also don't know how much environment plays into it. Ultimately, we may never know, and if we do determine that it is a function strictly of biology, then that opens a can of worms that you don't want to address, namely, what if there were a medical means to prevent homosexuality? What if it could be identified in utero? Would parents be within their rights to abort a child who would be born with a predisposition to being gay? Would they be right to get hormone or gene therapy to "straighten" them out? Oh, what a brave new world you have discovered.


This brave new world is coming whether you or I like it or not. We'll all have to grapple with these questions. You wrongly assume that I am committed to the idea that homosexuality *must* exist in the world, and would therefore be outraged at anyone who would genetically tamper with their bun in the oven to alter its sexual orientation... but I really am not. Either way, whether this future is imminent or not holds absolutely no bearing on whether its true that choice is biological.



Perhaps. Or perhaps she'd have kept her orientation to herself and had a great career? People are more than just the sum of their biology and urges.


Its biology all the way down, brotha. Until you conjure up some evidence of this other vague stuff to which you refer, you're just talking out your ass.


It's only liberals who believe that people cannot overcome their instincts,

You just love flippant little gross generalizations like this.. unfortunately they just make you look like a sloppy thinker.

But perhaps you mean its a tenet of liberal philosophy that "instincts" cannot be overcome.

But wait.. that can't be.. because you think that all liberals are basically Marxists who believe that all desires and instincts are social constructs subject to re-programming by a benevolent state.

Oops.



although even this is not consistent. For example, you believe that the most fundamental drive, the sexual drive, can be suppressed by openly gay Soldiers in the ranks, but cannot be suppressed in teenagers who are taught abstinence.


What a straw-man...

No, but I do believe that openly gay soldiers can resist raping their comrades, just as much as the straight soldiers can, or can at least practice enough discipline to behave appropriately while on the job. I wouldn't demand that they be abstinent any more than I would demand it of straight soldiers.

It is you and the DADT brigade who are implicitly demanding abstinence from homosexuals (see the first quoted bit at the top of this post).

AmPat
10-25-2010, 07:29 PM
Actually, in light of what AmPat says, that the military, except in rare instances, even bothers to discipline openly gay soldiers according to the policy, one wonders if it would be possible for DADT to be even more pointless? Why not save everyone all the bullshit and just repeal it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus
No, it is the act. I don't know what my fellow troopie finds attractive unless he or she tells me or otherwise acts on it. I also don't care. I care when their attraction becomes disruptive to good order and discipline, such as when they date, marry or otherwise act on their proclivitities.


So lets get this straight... basically, dating or marrying in a same-sex relationship.... even if the other partner is not in the military... is disruptive? Is it unreasonably disruptive when straight soldiers do the same?

If not, then why is it disruptive for a homosexual? I'm interested to hear why.
You're the self appointed Socrates here. Why don't you attempt to answer your question. You have no idea what military life is like yet you spout off at an active duty officer as though you were somehow better than him. You haven't earned the respect of anybody here that allows you to act like yur'e a superior intellect. Please though, answer your own question, it should keep you engaged for a few minutes.

wilbur
10-25-2010, 08:29 PM
You're the self appointed Socrates here. Why don't you attempt to answer your question. You have no idea what military life is like yet you spout off at an active duty officer as though you were somehow better than him. You haven't earned the respect of anybody here that allows you to act like yur'e a superior intellect. Please though, answer your own question, it should keep you engaged for a few minutes.

Oh I have my suspicions about what the answers will probably be like. I'd like to see them confirmed (or not), straight from the horses mouth.

Rockntractor
10-25-2010, 08:33 PM
Oh I have my suspicions about what the answers will probably be like. I'd like to see them confirmed (or not), straight from the horses mouth.

The horses ass wants to hear from the horses mouth!:rolleyes:

Big Guy
10-25-2010, 08:48 PM
The horses ass wants to hear from the horses mouth!:rolleyes:

Damn Rock, you beat me to it.


Wilbur, you don't have a clue, you never will. I have an idea, join the military, say....... U.S. Army Infantry. Go to Airborne School, Air Assault School, Ranger School. After you get back from a combat zone, let us know what you think. Then and ONLY THEN will your opinion on this subject matter.

So SHUT THE F*^% UP!

wilbur
10-25-2010, 09:17 PM
You're the self appointed Socrates here. Why don't you attempt to answer your question. You have no idea what military life is like yet you spout off at an active duty officer as though you were somehow better than him. You haven't earned the respect of anybody here that allows you to act like yur'e a superior intellect. Please though, answer your own question, it should keep you engaged for a few minutes.

Well, to further question the usefulness of DADT, I will look again to one of our resident armed services members, Odysseus.



I can't [see a surge of gays joining the military after a DADT repeal]. If gays really cared about the military, they'd be counterprotesting at the Westboro Baptist Church events at military funerals. Hasn't happened....


So according to Odysseus, the military won't even have to deal with any more additional homosexuals should DADT ever be repealed. Again, gotta wonder what all the fuming is about, really?

AmPat
10-25-2010, 09:39 PM
Well, to further question the usefulness of DADT, I will look again to one of our resident armed services members, Odysseus.



So according to Odysseus, the military won't even have to deal with any more additional homosexuals should DADT ever be repealed. Again, gotta wonder what all the fuming is about, really?

Are you familiar with the story of the gay soldier who was bludgeoned to death at Ft Campbell?
http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2003/May%202003/Slain%20Gay%20Soldier's%20Case%20Slows%20a%20Gener al's%20Rise.htmDo you have any concept what it will be like to be in a unit that had flaming homosexuals out in the open? As it is, the only thing that keeps a lid on the boiler is the civilian leadership who demands we accept politically correct social experimentation.

We have the best military in the world, why do the gay lovers want to force a change in that organization. There is no proof that it would make it better, so why change it? There is no problem now, why change it?

I beleive that after all the professional Gay apologists are finished, we still won't know the point of allowing openly gay recruits into a proven winning formula.

wilbur
10-25-2010, 09:48 PM
Are you familiar with the story of the gay soldiers who were bludgeoned to death at Ft Campbell? Do you have any concept what it will be like to be in a unit that had flaming homosexuals out in the open? As it is, the only thing that keeps a lid on the boiler is the civilian leadership who demands we accept politically correct social experimentation.


Man it just keeps happening.. notice how you are resorting to arguments that come eerily close some of the arguments used to justify racial segregation in the military.

And flaming homosexuals?!? Since when does 'openly gay', translate into 'flaming homosexuals'?

"Openly gay" simply means that one doesn't have to be clandestine about the fact that one is homosexual, for fear of losing one's career.. not that one is given permission to prance around the barracks in drag, singing show tunes.




We have the best military in the world, why do the gay lovers want to force a change in that organization. There is no proof that it would make it better, so why change it? There is no problem now, why change it?


According to both you and Ody, nothing will actually change, except some words on paper. You say the military already looks the other way in the face of open homosexuality, and Ody claims no gays are going to be joining the military if DADT is repealed (because, according to him, they hate it). So again, where is the disaster?

Big Guy
10-25-2010, 09:55 PM
Are you familiar with the story of the gay soldier who was bludgeoned to death at Ft Campbell?
http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2003/May%202003/Slain%20Gay%20Soldier's%20Case%20Slows%20a%20Gener al's%20Rise.htmDo you have any concept what it will be like to be in a unit that had flaming homosexuals out in the open? As it is, the only thing that keeps a lid on the boiler is the civilian leadership who demands we accept politically correct social experimentation.

We have the best military in the world, why do the gay lovers want to force a change in that organization. There is no proof that it would make it better, so why change it? There is no problem now, why change it?

I beleive that after all the professional Gay apologists are finished, we still won't know the point of allowing openly gay recruits into a proven winning formula.

Wilbur has NO IDEA. If you keep thousands of young MEN in an Infantry unit, with all that testosterone and throw in a few Gay Guys there is going to be trouble.

AmPat
10-25-2010, 09:59 PM
And flaming homosexuals?!? Since when does 'openly gay', translate into 'flaming homosexuals'?

"Openly gay" simply means that one doesn't have to be clandestine about the fact that one is homosexual, for fear of losing one's career.. not that one is given permission to prance around the barracks in drag, singing show tunes.
It used to be that homsexuals weren't alowed in the door. Then we said, if you deceived us and got in, it's ok if you don't tell and we won't ask. Now it has become an open arms for military arms atmosphere. Why do you not believe that it will become prancing and show tunes? What's to stop them? What is the logical reaction to this affront? (Make no mistake, the prancing, sashaying will result in more than cheering from the military crowds). I don't expect you to know what I'm saying, I do expect you to respect my, and other's opinion. I am an active duty soldier, I'm not just engaging in an academic exwecise.

wilbur
10-25-2010, 10:03 PM
It used to be that homsexuals weren't alowed in the door. Then we said, if you deceived us and got in, it's ok if you don't tell and we won't ask. Now it has become an open arms for military arms atmosphere. Why do you not believe that it will become prancing and show tunes? What's to stop them? What is the logical reaction to this affront? (Make no mistake, the prancing, sashaying will result in more than cheering from the military crowds). I don't expect you to know what I'm saying, I do expect you to respect my, and other's opinion. I am an active duty soldier, I'm not just engaging in an academic exwecise.

Because naturally... all homosexuals want to prance around and sing show tunes wearing stockings and bright pink boa's... And people wonder why they get called bigots...

AmPat
10-25-2010, 10:09 PM
Man it just keeps happening.. notice how you are resorting to arguments that come eerily close some of the arguments used to justify racial segregation in the military.

And flaming homosexuals?!? Since when does 'openly gay', translate into 'flaming homosexuals'?

"Openly gay" simply means that one doesn't have to be clandestine about the fact that one is homosexual, for fear of losing one's career.. not that one is given permission to prance around the barracks in drag, singing show tunes.




According to both you and Ody, nothing will actually change, except some words on paper. You say the military already looks the other way in the face of open homosexuality, and Ody claims no gays are going to be joining the military if DADT is repealed (because, according to him, they hate it). So again, where is the disaster?Stop with the idiotic "gotcha" and i'll attempt to explain. Yes I said earlier it is risky to attempt a chapter separation because of the ramifications of losing the case, that does NOT mean If an openly gay soldier is caught under established UCMJ, he-she will not be Chaptered out. It is harder now because of policy, but not impossible. IOW-It still happens, just harder to do.

ODY (and I) don't see throngs of Gays breaking down the doors of recruitment offices. However, If the gates are opened to openly gay recruits, what makes you think that some militant (albeit stupid) gay joins to make trouble? Just watch, wait, and see. I'm sure it will be a matter of time. When that happens, the inevitable gay bashing will occur. Then just watch the hand wringing of the very liberals who championed their service.

Please try to think before you respond. I do want to answer your questions but I'd also like to hear your motives. The question seems to be framed toward "why can't gays serve openly?" I want to hear "why should they be allowed to serve at all?"

Rockntractor
10-25-2010, 10:14 PM
The part that bothers me is that civil courts have no business in military matters, it would seem that none of the branches of government want to remain within their boundaries any longer.

PoliCon
10-25-2010, 10:32 PM
The part that bothers me is that civil courts have no business in military matters, it would seem that none of the branches of government want to remain within their boundaries any longer.

That's what happens when you give progressives power - they want more and more and MORE.

Rockntractor
10-25-2010, 10:36 PM
That's what happens when you give progressives power - they want more and more and MORE.

The system they are trying to create will not even work for them in the long run, we had better hope they lose.

Lager
10-25-2010, 10:45 PM
In the military, you have to subvert certain parts of your identity, or at least suppress them for the good of the unit. In other words, whatever your identity consisted of before you took the oath -- black, white, male, female, urban or country, Puerto Rican, Italian, blood or crip -- you now have a greater identity as a functioning part of a team dedicated to common goals. Let's see if politically active homosexuals can accept that when they join. If so, perhaps the problems will be limited.

Big Guy
10-25-2010, 10:50 PM
In the military, you have to subvert certain parts of your identity, or at least suppress them for the good of the unit. In other words, whatever your identity consisted of before you took the oath -- black, white, male, female, urban or country, Puerto Rican, Italian, blood or crip -- you now have a greater identity as a functioning part of a team dedicated to common goals. Let's see if politically active homosexuals can accept that when they join. If so, perhaps the problems will be limited.

If not, the problem is not worth one life. Perhaps they can serve in Obama's civilian national security force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

CueSi
10-26-2010, 02:16 PM
In the military, you have to subvert certain parts of your identity, or at least suppress them for the good of the unit. In other words, whatever your identity consisted of before you took the oath -- black, white, male, female, urban or country, Puerto Rican, Italian, blood or crip -- you now have a greater identity as a functioning part of a team dedicated to common goals. Let's see if politically active homosexuals can accept that when they join. If so, perhaps the problems will be limited.

This. Some have been able...some haven't.

~QC

Odysseus
10-26-2010, 02:34 PM
Actually, in light of what AmPat says, that the military, except in rare instances, even bothers to discipline openly gay soldiers according to the policy, one wonders if it would be possible for DADT to be even more pointless? Why not save everyone all the bullshit and just repeal it?
Because under DADT, homosexuals must be discreet in their conduct. Repeal it and you open the floodgates to all sorts of behavior.


So lets get this straight... basically, dating or marrying in a same-sex relationship.... even if the other partner is not in the military... is disruptive? Is it unreasonably disruptive when straight soldiers do the same?

If not, then why is it disruptive for a homosexual? I'm interested to hear why.
Your verbal SAT scores must have been very low. Did you bother to read what I wrote about fraternization and the disruptions that occur when straight Soldiers do the same?

Any, I say again, Any sexual relationship between Soldiers in the same chain of command is toxic to good order and discipline. It results in favoritism, jealosy and erosion of morale. However, male and female Soldiers can currently avoid the issue by remaining in their own areas during off duty hours. With gay Soldiers, those areas are no longer sex-free zones.


Every time someone here makes the claim "Its a choice, therefore X" they implicitly assert some pretty controversial and unsubstantiated claims about free will and the nature of choice, most of the time without realizing it. So I made a little effort to describe my view, which quite frankly... makes more sense.
To you. You must get out more.
When you arbitrarily claim that it is hardwired, you are making a sweeping assertion, something that the researchers have been extremely reluctant to do. The fact is, we don't know the causes of homosexuality, and the subject is fraught with political as well as scientific implications. The only reason that you are making the claim is because it reinforces your otherwise specious argument about racial segregation equaling gay segregation.

Than what is it?

There are theories like dualism that say that our brain is just some meat sack which gets driven by some ethereal immaterial being that is "I"... but it becomes more irrelevant every day as neuroscience marches onward. In any case, we certainly know *some* choices are biological. We know our decision making process can be altered by our brain chemistry, through drugs, or other physical causes like tumors.
>snip<
So for all you "its a choice'ers", you're simply up shit creek without a paddle.
So, you go from dualism as a theory to dualism as an accepted fact in order to strand us up the creek? That's a nice sleight of hand, but it's a logical fallacy. If A, then B only applies if A is regarded as true. Since A is only a theory, B is just as theoretical. What it comes down to is that, once again, we don't know the cause. If we did, then there would be other research on treating it, which would really enrage the advocates. If you want to go down that path, be my guest.


This brave new world is coming whether you or I like it or not. We'll all have to grapple with these questions. You wrongly assume that I am committed to the idea that homosexuality *must* exist in the world, and would therefore be outraged at anyone who would genetically tamper with their bun in the oven to alter its sexual orientation... but I really am not. Either way, whether this future is imminent or not holds absolutely no bearing on whether its true that choice is biological.

One could argue that any horrific turn was inevitable, and therefore we must embrace it. No thanks. If you want to play eugenecist, you will do so only over my dead body, which is probably the end result.


Its biology all the way down, brotha. Until you conjure up some evidence of this other vague stuff to which you refer, you're just talking out your ass.
As opposed to what you're doing, which is making the assertion that homosexuality is biological? And don;t call me "brotha." My parents knew each other.


You just love flippant little gross generalizations like this.. unfortunately they just make you look like a sloppy thinker.
Says the person who indulges is gross generalizations about the biological complexities of behavior.


But perhaps you mean its a tenet of liberal philosophy that "instincts" cannot be overcome.
No, I mean political liberals, progressives, or whatever you're calling yourselves today. Whenever there is a debate over reigning in an impulse that liberals enjoy, like sex or drugs, you invariably make the claim that it is impossible to expect people not to act on their impulses. If being gay is hardwired, then the sexual drive and desires are hardwired, and cannot be overcome. Therefore, allowing openly gay Soldiers will end up allowing gay sexual behavior everywhere that those Soldiers are allowed.


But wait.. that can't be.. because you think that all liberals are basically Marxists who believe that all desires and instincts are social constructs subject to re-programming by a benevolent state.

Oops.
No, I think that liberals are opportunists who will take any argument that supports their agenda, regardless of whether it applies or not. Wei believes that desire is a social construct. You claim that it is biological. I don't know which it is, although I suspect that it's a combination of both, but I'm not the one arguing to overturn centuries of military law and turning the military into your latest petri dish. If you want to argue from a scientific point of view, then at least get the established science, and then make sure that it's right, because there's a lot more riding on this than whether you go to bed feeling good about how you stood up to the "bigots" and traditionalists.

What a straw-man...
Hardly. It's an obvious contradiction in your argument.


No, but I do believe that openly gay soldiers can resist raping their comrades, just as much as the straight soldiers can, or can at least practice enough discipline to behave appropriately while on the job. I wouldn't demand that they be abstinent any more than I would demand it of straight soldiers.

It is you and the DADT brigade who are implicitly demanding abstinence from homosexuals (see the first quoted bit at the top of this post).
But we did demand it of straight Soldiers, at least temporarily. The active military was all male until 1976, when Carter incorporated the women's auxileries into the main force. There were no co-ed barracks, or even units. It wasn't until women became part of the regular force that you began to have barracks affairs, and as I've said before, those are incredibly destructive.


Oh I have my suspicions about what the answers will probably be like. I'd like to see them confirmed (or not), straight from the horses mouth.


Man it just keeps happening.. notice how you are resorting to arguments that come eerily close some of the arguments used to justify racial segregation in the military.
Notice how you keep claiming that without evidence. How many people have you spoken to who served when the military was segregated? How many have you spoken to when it was desegregated? You keep repeating, but you refuse to acknowledge the differences. Segregated units of black Soldiers had repeatedly shown valor, honor, discipline and leadership in every war since the Civl War, and their integration was a matter of taking men who were already in uniform and allowing them to go into other units. It was logistically simple, and even that resulted in decades of conflict, which you ignore.


And flaming homosexuals?!? Since when does 'openly gay', translate into 'flaming homosexuals'?

"Openly gay" simply means that one doesn't have to be clandestine about the fact that one is homosexual, for fear of losing one's career.. not that one is given permission to prance around the barracks in drag, singing show tunes.

But if it did, would there be anything wrong with that under the new policy that replaces DADT? Could a commander have any position on prancing and show tunes that isn't homophobic? If a Soldier turns the TV in the day room from Monday Night Football to Glee, is turning it back a hate crime? And before you argue that this is absurd, allow me to point out that many of the complaints that female and male Soldiers make about each other are absurd, but that doesn't keep them from having to be dealt with, and often, the most absurd idiocy can end careers.


According to both you and Ody, nothing will actually change, except some words on paper. You say the military already looks the other way in the face of open homosexuality, and Ody claims no gays are going to be joining the military if DADT is repealed (because, according to him, they hate it). So again, where is the disaster?

No, that is exactly the opposite of what we are saying. We are saying that repeal will lead to conflicts, harassment (both ways), increasing violations of the UCMJ, erosion of unit cohesion, severe impacts on recruting and retention, a complete inversion of the values of the military culture and a dangerous decline in discipline.

Odysseus
10-26-2010, 02:35 PM
Okay, Wilbur, here's my summary of what is wrong with this, in simple bullet comments that even you can understand:

Reasons to lift DADT:

We get a few linguists back.

It makes you, and a small clique of activists, feel good about doing something for what they perceive as a civil rights issue.

Reasons to oppose:


Acceptance of openly gay Soldiers will require training in what constitutes acceptable behavior towards gays. As Paul Laxalt wrote (and you ignored):

The situation will inevitably demand that the Commander "educate" the crew on homosexuality. He will have to teach them, probably with Power Point, what homosexuality is and that it is an accepted and equal lifestyle in the military. Further, since openness is the official policy, he will in essence have to vigorously defend homosexuality. Beyond an official position of lack of tolerance for any derogatory activity towards homosexuals, he will have to express empathy, genuine or conjured, about how oppressed homosexuals are within the military. He will have to request that his team embrace them and make them feel at home in their choice regardless of what it is doing to morale or team cohesion. Starting to see the problems?

The PC culture that will result from this change will erode our capabilities. Again, Laxalt:

Flash forward five years. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been lifted, and a commission has been called by Congress about why there are not enough homosexuals in senior leadership positions. Will there be pressure, subtle or overt, to make a homosexual in charge of a ship? Within five years, what if there is still not a homosexual Captain in the U.S. Navy who is in the top eleven out of over 1,000 Navy Captains to command an Aircraft Carrier -- a weapon system of unparalleled capacity possessing the ability to single-handedly wipe out dozens of nations at a time. Will the political pressure on flag officer leadership force a homosexual into command, regardless of ability? If so, will his sailors respect and follow? The consequences are realistic and dire. Currently a homosexual can gain such a command by merit alone, but for the cultural crusaders who fundamentally believe gays must be open no matter what the cost, competence is not a compelling military interest.

The erosion of the military culture of duty, honor, valor and, above all, professionalism, will drive great leaders and personnel of all ranks out of the force. It will be a purge of those people who do not hold "progressive" views of sex from an organization that has nothing to do with sex. It will politicize the force and result in a rapid erosion of the meritocracy of the military.

The logiistics demanded by separate quarters and latrines will be expensive, and at a time when our budgets are facing cuts, we cannot afford this.

If you decline to recognize that the logistical changes will be required, then you are forcing men and women to live and especially shower with others who may find them sexually attractive. That will drive many personnel out of the force, and increase the number of sexual incidents, to include assaults and rapes.

Finally, and I have not gone here because I wasn't away of the numbers until I stumbled across them, there are compelling medical issues. Men who sleep with men (MSM, in CDC parlance), account for an astonishing percentage of STD transmission. Assuming that MSM account for 10% of the male population (Kinsey) or 2.5%, the fact is that they account for 70% of HIV transmissions, with similar numbers for Syphillis, Gonorhea, HPV and other STDs. Rigorous testing has reduced HIV and other STDs in the army to near zero, and the lack of high risk behavior among troops keeps it there. But openly gay men openly engage in high risk behavior, and the result is that, whether in or out of the army, they are almost twenty times more likely to be infected with, and transmit, HIV than any other group.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/images/hiv-2006-graph-only.jpg

As the CDC said in their HIV fact sheet, "High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older." Now, you might want to claim that as long as they don't have sex with straight Soldiers, we have nothing to fear, right? Wrong. Ever been in a vehicle that's been hit with an IED? Ever had to perform first aid on a wounded buddy? Ever tie a pressure bandage or a tournequet? No? Guess what, we've all done it, or trained to do it, because the reality is that in our profession, people get hurt, and not just hurt, but hurt in bloody, messy ways that can scatter a human being all over the inside of a vehicle, and everyone in it. An openly gay Soldier who gets wounded may wonder why his fellow Soldiers are hesitant to try to stop his gushing wounds. No doubt, you'd call that homophobia, but then, you're not the one with the bandage, are you?

I'm sure that this last reason will outrage you, and I'm also sure that you will come up with all sorts of ways of saying "bigot" when you sputter your response, but the facts are the facts, and you have demonstrated no gain to the military from repealing DADT, aside from having to lose a few linguists, but the downsides that I have demonstrated run the gamut from destructive to catastrophic.

wilbur
10-29-2010, 10:38 AM
And finally getting around to this... again, still shocked at the depths to which ody will plunge into his own ass to pull out some bullshit.


Because under DADT, homosexuals must be discreet in their conduct. Repeal it and you open the floodgates to all sorts of behavior.

Wha?!? They don't have to be discreet now, they have to be absolutely clandestine. Repeal DADT and you open the floodgates for.... well... homosexuals having to abide by the same rules of conduct that is expected of any other solider.



Your verbal SAT scores must have been very low. Did you bother to read what I wrote about fraternization and the disruptions that occur when straight Soldiers do the same?

Any, I say again, Any sexual relationship between Soldiers in the same chain of command is toxic to good order and discipline. It results in favoritism, jealosy and erosion of morale. However, male and female Soldiers can currently avoid the issue by remaining in their own areas during off duty hours. With gay Soldiers, those areas are no longer sex-free zones.


Seriously.... please, process this point once and for all: gay soldiers are currently sleeping in your sex-free zone barracks as we speak... you just don't know which ones, thanks to DADT.

The military already has clear and strict regulations regarding fraternization - catch a soldier having sex and you can discipline them.. gay or straight.

And you have said repeatedly that the homosexual population in the military is small, and will stay small even after repeal, so I have a hard time buying the fact that these 'logistics' you speak of are going to cause even a slight hiccup.



When you arbitrarily claim that it is hardwired, you are making a sweeping assertion, something that the researchers have been extremely reluctant to do. The fact is, we don't know the causes of homosexuality, and the subject is fraught with political as well as scientific implications. The only reason that you are making the claim is because it reinforces your otherwise specious argument about racial segregation equaling gay segregation.




So, you go from dualism as a theory to dualism as an accepted fact in order to strand us up the creek? That's a nice sleight of hand, but it's a logical fallacy. If A, then B only applies if A is regarded as true. Since A is only a theory, B is just as theoretical. What it comes down to is that, once again, we don't know the cause. If we did, then there would be other research on treating it, which would really enrage the advocates. If you want to go down that path, be my guest.


I think you misunderstand (ironic, given your jab about my verbal SAT scores). Look, we had the free-will conversation in the execution thread a long time ago, where I made the problems with your view of choice clear for all to see.

The long and short of it is, whether its a choice or not is irrelevant. The important thing is what it responds too. Does sexual orientation respond to social pressure or punishment? No, it doesn't. So its stupid to keep acting like it does. Whether it's 'chosen' in the traditional sense of the word is completely irrelevant, if it can't be influenced by our traditional types of responses to choices.



One could argue that any horrific turn was inevitable, and therefore we must embrace it. No thanks. If you want to play eugenecist, you will do so only over my dead body, which is probably the end result.


I didn't say anything about "embracing eugenics".. quit putting words in my mouth. The technology will probably exist one day, and we're going to have to figure out how and what to use it for. I didn't say we should.



As opposed to what you're doing, which is making the assertion that homosexuality is biological? And don;t call me "brotha." My parents knew each other.


Actually, I'm asserting that all choice is biological/environmental.. and like I said, we've argued over this before.

If you were somehow able to get me to concede that we simply can't rule out choice... you still can't rule out biological/environmental causes either. So there's no reason why we should shape policy and attitudes towards 'choice', based on the off chance that you are right about it.



Says the person who indulges is gross generalizations about the biological complexities of behavior.


I make arguments supporting my view. The rest of you don't bother, and just assume without saying it that your views of choice, free-will, etc are all correct, and just expect the rest of us to go along with it.



No, I mean political liberals, progressives, or whatever you're calling yourselves today. Whenever there is a debate over reigning in an impulse that liberals enjoy, like sex or drugs, you invariably make the claim that it is impossible to expect people not to act on their impulses. If being gay is hardwired, then the sexual drive and desires are hardwired, and cannot be overcome. Therefore, allowing openly gay Soldiers will end up allowing gay sexual behavior everywhere that those Soldiers are allowed.


Good grief, each one of your posts is drowning with the implications that gay soldiers will be raping and molesting their fellow service men left and right... I'm the one saying they will practice the same restraint as anyone else. I've never ever argued that a people are incapable of controlling their impulses while on the job, or in school, or in other scenarios where certain behavior is required of them.



No, I think that liberals are opportunists who will take any argument that supports their agenda, regardless of whether it applies or not. Wei believes that desire is a social construct. You claim that it is biological. I don't know which it is, although I suspect that it's a combination of both, but I'm not the one arguing to overturn centuries of military law and turning the military into your latest petri dish. If you want to argue from a scientific point of view, then at least get the established science, and then make sure that it's right, because there's a lot more riding on this than whether you go to bed feeling good about how you stood up to the "bigots" and traditionalists.


Petri dish? You forget. There are armies the world over who have integrated homosexuals, same barracks and all, for going on TWENTY YEARS. Show me where homosexual integration is destroying the Israeli military.. oh wait.. you can't. The history of just about every single western military the world over show your paranoia to be completely without justification.



Hardly. It's an obvious contradiction in your argument.

But we did demand it of straight Soldiers, at least temporarily. The active military was all male until 1976, when Carter incorporated the women's auxileries into the main force. There were no co-ed barracks, or even units. It wasn't until women became part of the regular force that you began to have barracks affairs, and as I've said before, those are incredibly destructive.


Lets throw it out there again. According to you DADT repeal won't result in many new homosexual recruits. The population of homosexuals is already very small. Homosexuals already serve now, you just don't know who they are. Homosexuals can engage in destructive affairs now, today. You're making the argument for me here, this is great... so almost nothing will change, except a rather draconian and unjust policy.



But if it did, would there be anything wrong with that under the new policy that replaces DADT? Could a commander have any position on prancing and show tunes that isn't homophobic? If a Soldier turns the TV in the day room from Monday Night Football to Glee, is turning it back a hate crime?

<facepalm> Just remember this quoted bit the next time you get indignant over being called prejudice.



And before you argue that this is absurd, allow me to point out that many of the complaints that female and male Soldiers make about each other are absurd, but that doesn't keep them from having to be dealt with, and often, the most absurd idiocy can end careers.


I'm sure people make absurd complaints all the time... but once again.. According to you DADT repeal won't result in many new homosexual recruits. The population of homosexuals is already very small. Homosexuals already serve now, you just don't know who they are. Homosexuals can engage in absurd behavior now, today.

Oh, and I just have to address this:



Again, look at the numbers. The number of gay Soldiers is infinitesmally small compared to the total size of the force, and yet the number of male on male rapes is apalling. Opening the floodgates to openly gay Soldiers will increase those numbers proportionally.


I'm sure at sometime in your sensitivity training, school, or life you might have heard something about the psychology of rape.

Rape and many other types of similar sexual assaults are almost always psychologically driven by a desire for power and domination, not blue balls or lust. So it shouldn't surprise you to learn that almost all male-on-male rape is committed by self-identified heterosexuals, who prefer heterosexual encounters in their consensual relationships.

But please... by all means, keep assuming that all the male-on-male sex crimes in the army are a result of homosexuals... but you won't have any right to get all pissy the next time you get called a bigot for it.

And you've contradicted yourself, yet again. You say no new homosexuals are going to join the military once DADT is repealed. So when you claim that the number of rapes will increase "proportionally", we have to assume that you mean they will increase by 0%?

wilbur
10-29-2010, 10:58 AM
Okay, Wilbur, here's my summary of what is wrong with this, in simple bullet comments that even you can understand:

Reasons to lift DADT:

We get a few linguists back.

It makes you, and a small clique of activists, feel good about doing something for what they perceive as a civil rights issue.

Reasons to oppose:


Acceptance of openly gay Soldiers will require training in what constitutes acceptable behavior towards gays. As Paul Laxalt wrote (and you ignored):


The PC culture that will result from this change will erode our capabilities. Again, Laxalt:


The erosion of the military culture of duty, honor, valor and, above all, professionalism, will drive great leaders and personnel of all ranks out of the force. It will be a purge of those people who do not hold "progressive" views of sex from an organization that has nothing to do with sex. It will politicize the force and result in a rapid erosion of the meritocracy of the military.

The logiistics demanded by separate quarters and latrines will be expensive, and at a time when our budgets are facing cuts, we cannot afford this.

If you decline to recognize that the logistical changes will be required, then you are forcing men and women to live and especially shower with others who may find them sexually attractive. That will drive many personnel out of the force, and increase the number of sexual incidents, to include assaults and rapes.

Finally, and I have not gone here because I wasn't away of the numbers until I stumbled across them, there are compelling medical issues. Men who sleep with men (MSM, in CDC parlance), account for an astonishing percentage of STD transmission. Assuming that MSM account for 10% of the male population (Kinsey) or 2.5%, the fact is that they account for 70% of HIV transmissions, with similar numbers for Syphillis, Gonorhea, HPV and other STDs. Rigorous testing has reduced HIV and other STDs in the army to near zero, and the lack of high risk behavior among troops keeps it there. But openly gay men openly engage in high risk behavior, and the result is that, whether in or out of the army, they are almost twenty times more likely to be infected with, and transmit, HIV than any other group.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/images/hiv-2006-graph-only.jpg

As the CDC said in their HIV fact sheet, "High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older." Now, you might want to claim that as long as they don't have sex with straight Soldiers, we have nothing to fear, right? Wrong. Ever been in a vehicle that's been hit with an IED? Ever had to perform first aid on a wounded buddy? Ever tie a pressure bandage or a tournequet? No? Guess what, we've all done it, or trained to do it, because the reality is that in our profession, people get hurt, and not just hurt, but hurt in bloody, messy ways that can scatter a human being all over the inside of a vehicle, and everyone in it. An openly gay Soldier who gets wounded may wonder why his fellow Soldiers are hesitant to try to stop his gushing wounds. No doubt, you'd call that homophobia, but then, you're not the one with the bandage, are you?

I'm sure that this last reason will outrage you, and I'm also sure that you will come up with all sorts of ways of saying "bigot" when you sputter your response, but the facts are the facts, and you have demonstrated no gain to the military from repealing DADT, aside from having to lose a few linguists, but the downsides that I have demonstrated run the gamut from destructive to catastrophic.

Again, there's little to say here except that your arguments arent aimed anywhere at DADT.

If homosexuals present such a disease risk, then you need to be screening for them and banning them from the military. DADT does absolutely nothing to mitigate disease risk.

djones520
10-29-2010, 11:09 AM
Again, there's little to say here except that your arguments arent aimed anywhere at DADT.

If homosexuals present such a disease risk, then you need to be screening for them and banning them from the military. DADT does absolutely nothing to mitigate disease risk.

Thats absolutely bullshit Wilbur. STD rates are so high because openly gay men are more likely to to have an open and promiscous sex life. DADT pretty much forces them to keep a quiet sex life. Men in the dorms can't have revolving doors. It would be impossible to hide.

By allowing them to openly serve, your inviting all the things that come with, which includes openly promiscous behavior, which also brings increased STD rates.

wilbur
10-29-2010, 11:27 AM
Thats absolutely bullshit Wilbur. STD rates are so high because openly gay men are more likely to to have an open and promiscous sex life. DADT pretty much forces them to keep a quiet sex life. Men in the dorms can't have revolving doors. It would be impossible to hide.

By allowing them to openly serve, your inviting all the things that come with, which includes openly promiscous behavior, which also brings increased STD rates.


Or one could just as easily say that our soldiers face greater risk now, because of DADT. For fear of risking his or her job, a gay soldier may be less likely to visit military doctors to be treated for STD's because it may cause their sexual orientations to be questioned.

For many STD's, partners need to be named, identified and contacted.

djones520
10-29-2010, 11:40 AM
Or one could just as easily say that our soldiers face greater risk now, because of DADT. For fear of risking his or her job, a gay soldier may be less likely to visit military doctors to be treated for STD's because it may cause their sexual orientations to be questioned.

For many STD's, partners need to be named, identified and contacted.

Free clinics are still available to visit. There is no law saying service members have to attend a MTF. In the event of HIV, military members are required to be tested annually, so there is no hiding that.

Your reasoning fails.

wilbur
10-29-2010, 11:54 AM
Free clinics are still available to visit. There is no law saying service members have to attend a MTF. In the event of HIV, military members are required to be tested annually, so there is no hiding that.

Your reasoning fails.

Perhaps... assuming there is a free clinic or reliable medical service where the soldier is deployed, that is... but even still, the extra trouble and worry may cause treatment to be delayed or hindered. And prescriptions sure aren't free, no matter what clinic you go to.

And forgive me, but I think its pretty BIG assumption to say that the sexual encounters of gay personnel will be drastically affected by DADT.

And lets not forget, there don't seem to be any problems with rampant STI's circulating through other armed forces where homosexuals serve openly.

djones520
10-29-2010, 12:12 PM
Perhaps... assuming there is a free clinic or reliable medical service where the soldier is deployed, that is... but even still, the extra trouble and worry may cause treatment to be delayed or hindered.

And forgive me, but I think its pretty BIG assumption to say that the sexual encounters of gay personnel will be drastically affected by DADT.

And lets not forget, there don't seem to be any problems with rampant STI's circulating through other armed forces where homosexuals serve openly.

It's not an assumption at all. Gay service members won't be attending gay pride parades in San Fran. They won't be cruising bath houses. They'll be keeping a low profile with their sex life. The more open it is, the easier it is to get caught.

And that is a choice that they make by wanting to serve.

It's a statistical fact that homosexuals are more likely to be infected by STD's. Opening the service to them will result in higher rates of STD's in the service. That will result in higher medical costs, and higher defense budgets.

It's an indisputable fact.

As for other countries? Well Israel does a shitty job of tracking it's STD rates. Europes STD rates are through the roof compaired to ours, because they engender the type of sexual society that many homosexuals in America practice.

Odysseus
10-29-2010, 03:32 PM
And finally getting around to this... again, still shocked at the depths to which ody will plunge into his own ass to pull out some bullshit.
Translation: Uh oh... He's not backing down and I've already played the bigot card for all it's worth. Only thing to do now is resort to open ridicule and hope that nobody notices that I have no clue what I'm talking about.


Wha?!? They don't have to be discreet now, they have to be absolutely clandestine. Repeal DADT and you open the floodgates for.... well... homosexuals having to abide by the same rules of conduct that is expected of any other solider.
They already abide by those rules. No same sex sexual contact. It bars straights as well as gays from the the love that used to dare not speak its name, but now won't shut up.


Seriously.... please, process this point once and for all: gay soldiers are currently sleeping in your sex-free zone barracks as we speak... you just don't know which ones, thanks to DADT.
And you have murderers sleeping in your town. Shall we repeal the laws against murder so that you can more easily recognize them?


The military already has clear and strict regulations regarding fraternization - catch a soldier having sex and you can discipline them.. gay or straight.
And when those regulations are challenged because they discriminate, what then? After all, you will then argue, who does it hurt if two Soldiers seek comfort from each other after lights out? And the arguments against fraternization will be dismissed with the same narrow-minded progressive fervor that you bring to this argument.

And you have said repeatedly that the homosexual population in the military is small, and will stay small even after repeal, so I have a hard time buying the fact that these 'logistics' you speak of are going to cause even a slight hiccup.
Ever been in a parking lot that was completely full, except for the handicapped parking row, which was empty? We don't build housing based on who is there, we build it based on projected need. That means that we will have to build additional quarters, latrines and other facilities on every post, in every place that the DOD does business, because a gay Soldier might need to use it. The rest of the time, it will sit there, empty, a testament to waste.


I think you misunderstand (ironic, given your jab about my verbal SAT scores). Look, we had the free-will conversation in the execution thread a long time ago, where I made the problems with your view of choice clear for all to see.
As I recall, you lost that argument handily. Anyone else have a different recollection?


The long and short of it is, whether its a choice or not is irrelevant. The important thing is what it responds too. Does sexual orientation respond to social pressure or punishment? No, it doesn't. So its stupid to keep acting like it does. Whether it's 'chosen' in the traditional sense of the word is completely irrelevant, if it can't be influenced by our traditional types of responses to choices.
If it can't be influenced, then how can it be mitigated by rules and regulations? I guess the fraternization rules won't last long after DADT goes out, will they?


I didn't say anything about "embracing eugenics".. quit putting words in my mouth. The technology will probably exist one day, and we're going to have to figure out how and what to use it for. I didn't say we should.

No, you simply throw up your hands and say, "well, that's it." As Edmund Burke once said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, although it's a stretch to call you "good," but given a future horror, I choose to resist it. You choose to acquiesce. Not an embrace, perhaps, but certainly not resistance. Just a shrug and a hip, sophisticated pose of "whatever, dude." You'd have loved Weimar Germany.


Actually, I'm asserting that all choice is biological/environmental.. and like I said, we've argued over this before.

If you were somehow able to get me to concede that we simply can't rule out choice... you still can't rule out biological/environmental causes either. So there's no reason why we should shape policy and attitudes towards 'choice', based on the off chance that you are right about it.
Or the off chance that you are. But, if we base the policy on my prescription, we don't risk gutting the military, eroding our national defense and weakening ourselves in an increasingly dangerous world. If we follow your policy, we do.


I make arguments supporting my view. The rest of you don't bother, and just assume without saying it that your views of choice, free-will, etc are all correct, and just expect the rest of us to go along with it.
No, you make assertions of your views. I've never seen you present evidence. Where are the conclusive studies showing links between biochemistry and orientation? Physiology and orientation? Genetics and orientation?

Odysseus
10-29-2010, 03:33 PM
Good grief, each one of your posts is drowning with the implications that gay soldiers will be raping and molesting their fellow service men left and right... I'm the one saying they will practice the same restraint as anyone else. I've never ever argued that a people are incapable of controlling their impulses while on the job, or in school, or in other scenarios where certain behavior is required of them.
No, they will practice the same restraint that they practice at a gay pride parade. What you don't get, Wilbur, is that gay men are the most sexually promiscuous demographic in human society. Here's the evidence from several studies:


"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'" Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.
Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. "

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D



Petri dish? You forget. There are armies the world over who have integrated homosexuals, same barracks and all, for going on TWENTY YEARS. Show me where homosexual integration is destroying the Israeli military.. oh wait.. you can't. The history of just about every single western military the world over show your paranoia to be completely without justification.
I addressed this several times, which just makes me think again about your SAT Verbal scores. Here it is again:


The Israelis restrict openly gay service members to support and rear echelon positions (no pun intended). They don't permit them in combat units, especially elite units, for the reasons that I've described. In addition, the Israelis restrict the roles of women in the IDF to the same areas. The reason for this is that during the 1948 war, they had women in combat brigades, and discovered that male Soldiers were so horrified by the sight of female casualties that they would either place themselves at greater risk to prevent them, or hold them back, thus compromising the mission. They also discovered that Arab troops considered surrender to units with women in them to be dishonorable, and they also sought female prisoners for reasons which should be obvious. As a result, they often fought harder against mixed units. The end result of the policy was higher casualties on both sides. The Israelis rightfully saw the repeal of that policy as a moral imperative, as any commander who fails to take all appropriate actions to mitigate casualties while accomplishing the mission has abrogated the trust and violated the loyalty of his subordinates.
Now you can pretend that you didn't read it twice.


Lets throw it out there again. According to you DADT repeal won't result in many new homosexual recruits. The population of homosexuals is already very small. Homosexuals already serve now, you just don't know who they are. Homosexuals can engage in destructive affairs now, today. You're making the argument for me here, this is great... so almost nothing will change, except a rather draconian and unjust policy.
You cannot be this obtuse. If you change the policy, even if only a small percentage join, it will have effects far beyond the very small numbers. If you had any knowledge of military culture, you would know that there would have to be extensive training in tolerance of gay lifestyles, which means that Soldiers would have to be informed as to what those lifestyles consist of. As former admiral Paul Laxalt wrote, and I have quoted at length, and you have disregarded, here is what that will look like and the consequences:


The situation will inevitably demand that the Commander "educate" the crew on homosexuality. He will have to teach them, probably with Power Point, what homosexuality is and that it is an accepted and equal lifestyle in the military. Further, since openness is the official policy, he will in essence have to vigorously defend homosexuality. Beyond an official position of lack of tolerance for any derogatory activity towards homosexuals, he will have to express empathy, genuine or conjured, about how oppressed homosexuals are within the military. He will have to request that his team embrace them and make them feel at home in their choice regardless of what it is doing to morale or team cohesion. Starting to see the problems?

To those who currently tolerate homosexuals but retain their God‐given right to reject homosexuality as a practiced lifestyle -- could you do the above as a leader? Even for your country? It is one thing for the military to ask its members to accept homosexuals, but another for the military to ask its members to accept and live with homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle. Last, it will demand a third step: senior officers and non‐commissioned officers will have to, under the color of Military Law, proactively endorse and eventually foster homosexuality. You will undoubtedly lose great leaders: men of discipline with strong values -- unshakable belief in right and wrong -- the type who devote their lives to protecting you. Many will not cave in to this political demand.

You don't know what you are demanding, you don't know the culture, the way that we operate or anything about the military, but you're willing to brand us as bigots because we resist a change that makes you feel good.

Rockntractor
10-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Perhaps... assuming there is a free clinic or reliable medical service where the soldier is deployed, that is... but even still, the extra trouble and worry may cause treatment to be delayed or hindered. And prescriptions sure aren't free, no matter what clinic you go to.

And forgive me, but I think its pretty BIG assumption to say that the sexual encounters of gay personnel will be drastically affected by DADT.

And lets not forget, there don't seem to be any problems with rampant STI's circulating through other armed forces where homosexuals serve openly.

Wilbur are you a practicing homosexual or have you mastered it?

CueSi
10-29-2010, 04:37 PM
Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men. Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. "

Then that means they're bisexual. Why they lyin'? UGH, just... UGH. I bet some of those self same byches would hate on me if I rolled into a club with a dude.

~QC

Odysseus
10-29-2010, 08:25 PM
Wilbur are you a practicing homosexual or have you mastered it?
He has only mastered baiting conservatives on message boards. You know what that makes him. :D

Then that means they're bisexual. Why they lyin'? UGH, just... UGH. I bet some of those self same byches would hate on me if I rolled into a club with a dude.
~QC
But since they self-identify as lesbians, we have to assume that they are, even if they change their minds or preferences which, according to Wilbur, is clearly impossible, since they are hardwired that way, so obviously we, the survey takers and the lesbians are completely wrong, but Wilbur alone is correct. All hail Wilbur, the all-knowing. :rolleyes: